W81K04-22-R-0005 Amendment 0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is the follow ing:

1. Post Amendment 3 Attachment 3 – Questions and Answ ers;

2. Delete DFARS Clauses 252.237-7023 and 252.237-7024;

3. Update paragraphs 5.3.1. and 6.1.1. of the Performance Work Statement;

4. Revise Addendum to 52.212-1 subparagraphs Table l.k., 2. c. 4) b), and 2. c. 4) c);

5. Delete Attachment 7, Customer Reference Information;

6. Provide Revise Documents - Exhibit B and Attachment 8;

7. The proposal due date is amended to 21 March 2022, 12 p.m. Central Standard Time. The point of contact for amendment is Ms. Tracy Blake at tracy.a.blake2.civ@mail.mil. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 47

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 10-Mar-2022

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W81K0422R0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-Feb-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10-Mar-2022

CODE

W40M USA HLTH CONTRACTING ACT

CTR FOR HEALTH CARE CONTR

2199 STORAGE ST BLDG 4197 STE 68

JBSA FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5074

W81K04 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W81K0422R0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The purpose of the amendment is as follows:

1. Post Amendment 3 Attachment 3 – Questions and Answers W81K04-22-R-0005 Neurocognitive Assessment Testing and Support Services as of 9 Mar 2022;

2. Delete DFARS Clauses as follows;

a. DFARS Clause 252.237-7023 Continuation of Mission Essential Functions (Oct 2010)

b. DFARS Clause 252.237-7024 Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services (Oct 2010)

3. Update Performance Work Statement as follows:

a. Paragraph 5.3.1. Software Updates. Last sentence of paragraph deleted;

b. Paragraph 6.2.1 Mandatory. Deleted NCAT Program Office, Data Management Standard Operating Procedure;

4. Revise Addendum to 52.212-1 as follows;

a. Subparagraph Table l.k. Volume II Technical Quality Proposal. Item 5 Cross Reference has been deleted.

b. Subparagraph 2. c. 4) b) has been deleted in its entirety.

c. Subparagraph 2. c. 4) c) has been revised.

5. Attachment 7, Customer Reference Information has been deleted;

6. Provide Revise Documents:

a. Revision 2 –Attachment 8 PAQ Cover Letter;

b. Exhibit B – Reports and Deliverables (Rev 1)

7. The proposal due date is amended to 21 March 2022, 12 p.m. Central Standard Time. The point of contact for this amendment is Ms. Tracy Blake at tracy.a.blake2.civ@mail.mil. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 18-Mar-2022 12:00 PM to 21-Mar-2022 12:00 PM.

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0001

The CLIN extended description has changed from:

Automated Neuropsycholoical Assessment Metrics (ANAM)/Neurocognitive Assessment Tool (NCAT) Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/2/2022.

To:

Automated Neuropsycholoical Assessment Metrics (ANAM)/Neurocognitive Assessment Tool (NCAT) Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/9/2022.

CLIN 1001

Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM)/ Neurocognitive Assessment Tool (NCAT) Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/2/2022.

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/9/2022.

CLIN 2001

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/2/2022.

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/9/2022.

CLIN 3001

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/2/2022.

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/9/2022.

CLIN 4001

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/2/2022.

Neurocognitive Testing Services. In accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 3/9/2022.

The following have been modified:

52.212-1 ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

Pursuant to FAR Subpart 12.302(a), FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) – Commercial Items, is tailored. The basic provision paragraphs (a), (f), and (h) – (k) of FAR Addendum 52.212-1 are not replaced. The basic provision paragraph (e) is deleted for this solicitation. The following paragraphs of specific instructions to offerors for this solicitation replace the basic provision paragraphs (b) through (d), (g), and (l).

FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items is tailored by addendum to as follows:

D. Proposal Submission – Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items.

1. General Instructions

a. This addendum prescribes the format for proposals and describes the approach for the development and presentation of proposal data. The offeror’s proposal shall include all data and information requested herein and shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Offerors are required to submit all documentation/information detailed herein, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to submit all required documentation/information may result in a proposal being ineligible for award. In submitting a proposal, offerors are agreeing to the terms and conditions as written in the entire solicitation.

b. These instructions are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of proposals. The instructions permit the inclusion of any additional data or information an offeror deems pertinent within the stated page limitations. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without discussion of such proposals. However, if deemed necessary, and at its sole discretion, the Government may request additional information from offerors.

c. All required elements of the RFP shall be submitted by the offeror with their proposal no later than the date/time shown in block 8 of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/ Contract/Order for Commercial Items.

The proposal shall be submitted to the address identified in block 9 of the SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. Facsimile offers are unacceptable. Any offeror that submits an offer that is incomplete, does not comply with requirements stated in the PWS, or otherwise does not conform to the requirements specified herein may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award.

d. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall 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. Offerors shall assume 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. Any proposal that modifies, or fails to conform, to the essential requirements or specifications of the RFP may cause the proposal to be judged unacceptable resulting in the offer being removed from consideration for award. Any aspect of the proposal judged to be unacceptable may render the entire proposal unacceptable. If the proposal is determined to be unacceptable, upon completion of proposal evaluations, the offeror will be notified promptly of the basis of the determination.

e. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

f. Period for acceptance of offers. The offeror shall provide a statement that the offeror’s proposal and cost/prices will remain in effect for 180 calendar days after solicitation closing date.

g. Product samples. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

h. Questions, Clarifications, or Discrepancies. Address all questions, clarifications, or concerns regarding this full proposal submission in writingmailto: to Ms. Tracy Blake, Contract Specialist via e-mail at tracy.a.blake2.civ@mail.mil, and Ms. Jenifer Lash, Procuring Contracting Officer, via e-mail at jenifer.lash.civ@mail.mil, referencing solicitation number W81K04-22-R-0005. Questions may be submitted up to 14 calendar days prior to full proposal submission date located in block 8 of the SF 1449 in the format at Attachment 3, “Question and Answer Template”. In the event of solicitation discrepancies (e.g., errors, omissions, or is otherwise unclear or unsound), offerors shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer (KO) in writing with supporting rationale. Be advised that all correspondence sent via e-mail shall contain a subject line that reads “W81K04-22-R-0005, Neurocognitive Assessment Testing and Support Services.” Note that e-mail filters at Fort Sam Houston are designed to filter e-mails without subject lines or with suspicious subject lines or contents (e.g., .exe, or .zip files); therefore, if this subject line is not included, the e-mail may not get through the e-mail filters.

Also, be advised that .zip or .exe files are not allowable attachments and may be deleted by the e-mail filters at Fort Sam Houston. If sending packages via e-mail, ensure only .pdf, .doc, or .xls documents are sent. The e-mail filter may delete any other form of attachments.

i. Debriefings. The KO will promptly notify unsuccessful offerors in accordance with procedures outlined in FAR Subpart 15.5, Preaward, Award, and Postaward Notifications, Protests, and Mistakes. Unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.5.

j. Electronic Offers. The offeror shall submit Volumes I through IV on separate files, in electronic format via the DoD Safe Site at https://safe.apps.mil, with an indication on each file, the name of the volume number and title.

The offeror shall email Ms. Tracy Blake at tracy.a.blake2.civ@mail and Ms. Jenifer Lash at jenifer.lash.civ@mail.mil no earlier than 14 days before solicitation closing so that the offeror can be provided (2) DoD Safe Site codes to upload proposal files. The offeror shall use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including factors, supplements, exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. Each volume shall be on a separate file. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. The offeror’s files shall be virus free. The electronic versions of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Word 2007/2010, MS Office Excel 2007/2010, MS Office Project 2007/2010, and MS Office Power Point 2007/2010, as applicable. The government will accept PDF files for the electronic version with the exception of the cost/price proposal (MS Office Excel 2007/2010) which requires the formulas to be reviewed by the government. The government will also accept Excel 2003 version as long as it is compatible with the Excel 2007/2010 version. It will be the offeror's responsibility to ensure the Excel 2003 version is compatible with the Excel 2007/2010 version.

k. Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 1.k. below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1.k.

The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 1.k. – Proposal Organization

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages

I Business Proposal 1 Unsanitized No limit

1. Cover Letter

2. Master Table of Contents

3. Contract Administrative Data

4. SF 1449/SF30

Note: Page 1 of the SF 1449 and all amendments (SF 30) must be signed by an authorized representative which indicates agreement of a 180-day acceptance period.

5. Completed Provisions

6. Property Management Plan

7. Responsibility Determination

8. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

II Technical Quality Proposal 1 Unsanitized 1 Sanitized

1. Table of Contents

2. Personnel

3. Work Processes

4. Quality Control Plan

5. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

III Performance Risk Proposal 1 Unsanitized 50

1. Table of Contents

2. Subcontractor Teaming Partner Consent Letter

3. Subcontractor Teaming Partner Table

4. (Performance Assessment Submission 1)

5. (Performance Assessment Submission 2)

6. (Performance Assessment Submission 3)

7. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

IV Cost/Price Proposal 1 Unsanitized No limits

1) All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume/section. For example, only information included in the section labeled “Quality Control Plan” will be evaluated for Quality Control Plan. If quality control information is included elsewhere in the proposal, it will not be evaluated as part of the Quality Control subfactor.

The Offeror shall confine submission to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal and provide adequate basis for evaluation. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details, in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2) Cross-Referencing. Each volume shall be written on a standalone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with no requirement to cross reference to other volumes of the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-Referencing shall be indicated in Attachment 4 entitled “Proposal Cross Referencing Matrix”.

However, subfactors under Technical Quality Proposals shall not be cross-referenced.

l. Page Limitations. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Pages in excess of the above limitations will be removed and disregarded during the evaluation. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Each page shall be counted except the following: covers, tab dividers, title pages, glossaries, and tables of contents.

m. Page Size and Format.

(1) Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be single-spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text shall be Times New Roman and shall be no less than font size 12. Use at least one inch margins on all four sides of the printed page. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

(2) Legible tables, charts, graphs, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, implementation schedules, plans, etc.; however, they shall not be used to replace information required for each volume.

These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. The text shall be Times New Roman, shall be no less than font size 12, and shall not be condensed.

2. Proposal Content

a. Volume I – Business Proposal. Offerors shall submit one virus-free, unsanitized copy of the business proposal.

1) COVER LETTER.

The cover letter shall be a no more than 2-page introduction identifying the Offeror (name, address, telephone and fax numbers, email address, cage code, DUNS number, the solicitation, number, and the contents of the proposal).

2) TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I – Business Proposal shall contain a Master Table of Contents referencing the contents in all volumes. The Master Table of Contents will not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3) CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA.

The Offeror shall provide with its proposal, points of contact (POCs) for administration of any resulting contract should the Offeror be selected. These POCs shall be available during normal business hours and other than normal business hours. The POC for other than normal business hours will be contacted only in the event of emergencies.

Accordingly, the named individual(s) should possess sufficient corporate authority to effectively deal with emergency situations. The telephone number(s) provided should be functional at all times. If there are different POCs for different conditions, such as weekdays, weekends, holidays, etc., please furnish all and explain as follows:

(a) Offeror’s normal business hours/days.

(b) POCs during normal business hours.

(c) POCs for other than normal business hours.

4) SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS (SF 1449) AND

AMENDMENTS (SF 30).

Offerors shall include a copy of the completed SF 1449, with an original signature of a corporate officer authorized to negotiate for the company. Include proposed discount terms in Block 12 and the name of the company, address, phone and fax numbers in Block 17a. Also acknowledgement of all amendments, (SF 30) with signature in Block 15B, and agreement of 180 days acceptance period.

5) Completed Provisions.

Offerors shall include completed provisions, as follows:

Provision Reference Title FAR 52.209-2 Prohibition on Contracting With Inverted Domestic Corporation FAR 52.209-5 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters FAR 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters FAR 52.204-17 Ownership or Control of Offeror

FAR 52.204-24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment

FAR 52.212-3 (Alternate I)

Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items If the offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) Website at http://sam.gov/portal, the offeror shall indicate such on the FAR Provision 52.212-3 (Alternate I), Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items

DFARS 252.203-7005 Representation Relating to Compensation of Former DoD Officials

6) Property Management Plan. Offerors shall submit a property management plan on how they will maintain the government furnished property provided under this requirement.

7) Responsibility Determination.

To assist in determining Offeror/Contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9, the Offeror shall explain how they plan to have or obtain adequate financial resources to support any awarded contract and resultant TOs. If the Offeror intends to rely on internally available working/operation capital, evidence of availability must be submitted. If the Offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, evidence of availability and the maximum lines of credit that may be available must be identified and must be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort.

Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source.

Documentation to support the amounts must also be included.

Offerors who fail to provide sufficient information for the Government to make an affirmative responsibility determination may be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for Certificate of Competency consideration USG FAR Part 19.6. To be eligible for award of a contract, the Offeror must receive an affirmative responsibility determination or a Certificate of Competency issued by the SBA.

8) Glossary Of Abreviations And Acronyms.

Include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the volume.

b. Volume II Factor 1 – Technical Quality Proposal. Offerors shall submit one virus-free sanitized electronic copy and one virus-free unsanitized electronic copy of the technical proposal.

Volume II shall include the Technical Quality Proposal and shall be specific and complete. The technical proposal shall not contain cost/pricing, past performance, or incumbency information, e.g. Subfactor 1C, Quality Control Plan, shall not include Work Processes information. The Offeror shall ensure that the Technical Quality Proposal is legible, clear, and cohesive. The offeror must submit one sanitized copy of the Technical Quality Proposal. The sanitized copy shall exclude any information that would identify their company (i.e. name, address, telephone numbers, employees’ names, CAGE Code and DUNS number). The sanitized Volume II proposal SHALL NOT contain the offeror’s CAGE code or DUNS number in the title name. The Government reserves the right to consider a proposal as unacceptable if not properly sanitized and offeror may be considered ineligible for award. The Government will evaluate Offeror‘s responses against the Technical Proposal subfactors defined in the Addendum to 52.212-2. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. The Offeror should ensure that their proposal does not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

1) Table Of Contents.

The Table of Contents shall contain details which delineate the subparagraphs and sections within that volume.

Technical Quality Proposal must specifically address the following subfactors:

2) Subfactor 1A. Personnel.

(a) Describe in detail your company’s organization, key personnel, logistics, and management.

Include details regarding your personnel plan for this requirement at embedded/mobile locations and the contractor program office, and ensure that your proposal includes position descriptions, number of personnel, and any cross-reference to positions contained on the Department of Labor wage determination. (See Attachment 2 - Historical FTEs by Location for embedded locations)

(b) Describe in detail proposed personnel involved in the effort (by site location), to include maintenance of a support element that will provide continuity to this effort through the life of the contract.

(c) Describe in detail experience, knowledge, and capabilities of key personnel related to baseline neurocognitive testing, as well as operation management, system engineering, data management, information assurance, HIPAA Compliance, and in the functional management of neurocognitive tests.

3) Subfactor 1B. Work Processes.

(a) Describe the techniques, tools and practices your company has in place to ensure the day-to-day performance of technical and administrative work processes necessary to perform baseline neurocognitive testing.

(b) Describe the techniques, tools and practices your company has in place to manage scheduling of technical support, the logistics system, support to embedded site and mobile site testing operations.

(c) Describe your organization’s technical capabilities and how they would be used to successfully perform on the resultant contract.

(d) Describe your organization’s technical capabilities and how they would be used to ensure timely delivery of all required services throughout the life of the resultant contract.

4) Subfactor 1C. Quality Control

(a) Describe your company’s independently operated quality control plan and how it ensures the delivery of quality services, for a requirement of this magnitude and scope, through systematic quality control processes and procedures.

(b) Describe your company’s quality control procedures for monitoring contract performance and quality for a requirement of this magnitude and scope.

(c) Describe your company’s quality control procedures for identifying trends, problems, issues, and deficiencies before the level of services become unacceptable.

(d) Describe your company’s quality control procedures and approach to process and quality improvement.

(e) Describe your company’s quality control processes and procedures for implementing corrective action and follow-up to determine the success of problem resolution.

(f) Describe your company’s quality control processes and procedures for documentation and records maintenance of quality problems and issues.

(g) Describe your company’s methodologies for ensuring prompt reporting of quality related problems to the United States Government or as requested.

(h) Describe your company’s quality control and techniques your companies uses to manage contract employee compliance with required standards, rules, and procedures throughout the life of the contract.

5) Glossary Of Abbreviations And Acronyms.

Include a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used throughout the volume.

c. Volume III – Performance Risk Proposal (Past and Present Performance) (Factor 2)

Volume III includes documentation that illustrates the Offeror’s performance on current or past government or commercial contracts. Volume III may include, no more than, three Performance Assessment Submissions (PASs).

Recent and relevant past performance information for this solicitation is past performance for a total of 24 months of the previous 36 months (from the date established for submission of proposals) similar to Neurocognitive Assessment Testing and Support Services similar in scope and complexity this solicitation requires. Each PAS shall describe work performed under one contract (see contract definition below). Each PAS shall meet the relevancy definition in Addendum to 52.212-2 and performance must have occurred within the last 36 months prior but not less than six months of the issuance date on the solicitation. The three PASs may include work performed by the prime Offeror and major subcontractor(s) stated in the Offeror’s technical proposal to perform on any resultant contract. If the offeror submits more than three contracts, the government will evaluate only the first three listed contracts for recency and relevancy. A complete Volume III shall include all files described below:

1) Table Of Contents. The Table of Contents shall contain details which delineate the subparagraphs and sections within that volume.

2) Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letters. Performance Risk information concerning subcontractors and teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the subcontractor’s or teaming partner’s consent. Because a prime Offeror/Contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor/teaming partner past and present performance information to the prime Offeror during discussions or negotiations. In an effort to assist the Government in assessing your performance risk, Offerors must have each of their subcontractors and teaming partners complete Attachment 5 entitled “Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent letter”. A completed consent form should be submitted as part of your Performance Risk (Past and Present Performance) Volume for each Subcontractor/Teaming Partner identified in your Volume III.

(a) Teaming Arrangements. If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Past experience of one team member will be considered past experience of all team members for purposes of evaluation.

(b) A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor performing more than 25% of the contract effort.

3) Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Table. The Offeror shall complete Attachment 6 entitled “Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Table” which describes business arrangements in which the Offeror intends to participate during the performance of any resulting contract. In the table, the Offeror shall use the same designation (i.e. STP-1) for each business partner as they use in their sanitized copy of their technical proposal.

4) Performance Assessment Submission (PAS). The Offeror shall submit PAS information only for those persons or entities (Offeror and prime subcontractors/teaming partners), who will perform on contracts resulting from this solicitation. The Offeror shall submit no more than three performance assessments on their current or past Government or commercial contracts. The word “contract” is defined as a single contract, purchase order, or a Task Order (TO) on an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The word “contract”, as defined herein, does not mean basic IDIQ contract, for the purpose of past performance submissions under this solicitation. A single performance assessment submission shall only include one contract, TO or purchase order and MAY not include a combination of contracts, purchase orders, or TOs. If an Offeror submits more than three contracts, the

Government will evaluate only the three listed contracts for recency and relevancy. If an Offeror submits multiple contracts, purchase orders or TOs on one performance assessment submission, then that submission will not be evaluated. Performance assessments shall meet the relevancy definition in Addendum to 52.212-2 and performance must have occurred within the last 36 months prior but not less than six months of the issuance date on the solicitation. The total number of performance assessment submissions shall include prime and any major subcontractor(s) projected to perform on any resultant contract. Only those subcontractors that meet the definition of a major subcontractor, as defined as performing more than 25% of any resultant contract arising from this solicitation will be used in the Offeror’s performance assessment. The Offeror shall submit a summary of each performance assessment submission, which shall be limited to two pages for each submission. Each submission shall include the following:

a) Statement of Relevancy: Provide a complete description of the work involved to include dollar value. Include rationale as to why and how the acquisition meets one of the relevancy definitions for this acquisition.

b) PARAGRAPH DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY

c) The offeror shall provide a list of all past performance customer reference points of contact (POCs).

This list will include the POCs name, phone numbers, email addresses and the organizations name with its Performance Risk Proposal. The offeror shall provide to the Government the PAQ Cover Letters (Attachment 8) and of the PAQs (Attachment 9) with only the following sections filled out: Evaluated Contractor's Information, Respondent Information, Full Time Equivalents (FTE's) provided, and contract information. Do not send PAQ's to references, the Government will execute this action. For Government contracts, a reference is defined as a government person who has knowledge of the quality of performance provided and who is either a member of the program office, administrative contracting office or end used of the service provided. For civilian contracts, a reference is defined as a person who is either a member of the program office, contracting office or end user of the service provided.

5) Glossary Of Abreviations And Acronyms. A glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

d. Volume IV – Cost/Price Proposal (Factor 3)

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate competition on this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial proposals, the contracting officer will review this determination and if in the Contracting Officer’s opinion, adequate competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of offerors’ price proposals. Additionally, all information related to pricing shall be included in Volume IV of the proposal only. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should pricing information be included elsewhere in the proposal. A complete Volume IV shall include the information below:

1) Volume IV shall include pricing information that will be used to evaluate an offeror’s total price. The offeror shall submit its proposed cost/price rounded to the nearest penny for each Contract Line Items Number (CLIN) for the base and all options on the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, Schedule of Services and Supplies, CLINS 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001 and 4001.

2) Pricing Narrative. The price proposal shall include a narrative as to how the prices were developed for each of the CLINs. Please show all the cost elements that make up each CLIN and include the methodology used to determine the number of personnel you utilize to execute the required services.

3. Special Instructions. Regarding FAR 52.228-5, Insurance-Work on Government Installation, see FAR 28.307 for minimum insurance requirements. In accordance with FAR 52.228-5, before commencing work under this contract, the contractor shall notify the KO in writing that the required insurance within 5 days of contract award.

E. Discussions

1. General Information. Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a technical, performance risk, and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

2. The primary objective of discussions will be to maximize the government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation.

3. If discussions are conducted, the KO will establish a competitive range based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (see FAR 15.306(c)). The establishment of the competitive range will be formally documented by the government in a competitive range determination. If discussions are necessary to establish technical acceptability, the KO may conduct discussions with offerors whose proposal(s) are determined to be reasonably capable of being corrected without a major rewrite of the proposal.

4. Discussions will be tailored to each offeror’s proposal and will be conducted by the KO with every offeror within the competitive range. The scope and extent of discussions will be a matter of KO’s judgment. As a minimum, during discussions, the KO will indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror in the competitive range the following: (a) significant weaknesses; (b) any deficiencies that were identified during the evaluation; and (c) adverse past performance information to which the offeror is not yet had an opportunity to respond. This will be accomplished through the release of Evaluation Notices (ENs). All ENs will clearly indicate the type of exchange being conducted (e.g. clarification, communication, etc.). Any EN addressing a proposal deficiency or significant weakness will clearly indicate that a deficiency and/or significant weakness exists. The KO may discuss other aspects of the offeror’s proposal that could in the opinion of the KO be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal’s potential for award. However, the KO will not be required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved as outlined at FAR 15.306(d) and (e). All discussions will be documented in writing.

End of ADDENDUM FAR Provision 52.212-1

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

ADDENDUM to 52.212-2

Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.301(c), FAR Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, Paragraph (a), is replaced in its entirety by addendum as follows:

A. Basis of 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 (3) evaluation factors:

Technical Quality, Performance Risk (Past and Present Performance), and Price. All Technical Quality subfactors are equally important. The Technically Quality factor is equally as important as the Performance Risk factor. When combined, Technical Quality and Performance Risk factors are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved on all technical factors (to include all subfactors). For Performance Risk factor, the Past and Present Performance must first meet Recency and Relevancy, to be further evaluated for Quality of Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” must be received on the Performance Risk factor. A rating of “Unknown Confidence” will be neither treated favorably or unfavorably and shall be considered for award. NOTE: ALL

NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

B. Factors and Subfactors to be Evaluated

The following evaluation factors and subfactors 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 subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical Quality factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1a Personnel

b. Subfactor 1b Work Processes

c. Subfactor 1c Quality Control

All Technically Quality Subfactors are equally important.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Quality subfactor as 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 C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical Quality subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Performance Risk: Each offeror’s past and present performance must first meet Recency and Relevancy to be further evaluated for Quality of Performance. Data will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Contract. The government may utilize cost analysis in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort. The government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Proposals assessed to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g).

C. Evaluation Approach

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

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors 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.

2. The Technical Quality Evaluation Approach Factor 1 is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1A Personnel: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Personnel for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall Personnel 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. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s personnel plan describes in detail the organization, key personnel, logistics, and management capabilities, as well as, details regarding a personnel plan for this requirement at embedded/mobile locations and the contractor program office; and ensuring that the proposal includes position descriptions, number of personnel, and any cross-reference to positions contained on the Department of Labor wage determination.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s personnel plan describes in detail proposed personnel involved in the effort (by site location), to include maintenance of a support element that will provide continuity to this effort through the life of the contract.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s personnel plan describes in detail experience, knowledge, and capabilities of key personnel related to baseline neurocognitive testing, as well as operation management, system engineering, data management, information assurance, HIPAA Compliance, and in the functional management of neurocognitive tests.

Subfactor 1B Work Processes: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Work Processes. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Work Processes describes the techniques, tools and practices they have in place to ensure the day-to- day performance of technical and administrative work processes necessary to perform baseline neurocognitive testing.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Work Processes describes the techniques, tools and practices they have in place to manage scheduling of technical support, the logistics system, support to embedded site and mobile site testing operations.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Work Processes describes their organization’s technical capabilities and how they would be used to successfully perform on a resultant contract.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Work Processes describes their organization’s technical capabilities and how they would be used to ensure timely delivery of all required services throughout the life of a resultant contract.

Subfactor 1C Quality Control Plan: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Quality Control Plan. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control plan describes their company’s independently operated quality control plan and how it ensures the delivery of quality services, for a requirement of this magnitude and scope, through systematic quality control processes and procedures.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control plan describes their company’s quality control procedures for monitoring contract performance and quality for a requirement of this magnitude and scope.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control plan describes company’s quality control procedures for identifying trends, problems, issues, and deficiencies before the level of services become unacceptable.

control procedures and approach to process and quality improvement.

control processes and procedures for implementing corrective action and follow-up to determine the success of problem resolution.

control processes and procedures for documentation and records maintenance of quality problems and issues.

• This standard is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control plan describes their company’s methodologies for ensuring prompt reporting of quality related problems to the USG or as requested.

control and techniques your companies uses to manage contract employee compliance with required standards, rules, and procedures throughout the life of the contract.

In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2 Methodology 2 for evaluating the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Findings Definitions

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See

FAR 15.001.

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.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

1. Performance Risk Factor 2. 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.

a) Using questionnaires and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, the KO will evaluate relevant and recent past performance information of all Offerors based…