RFP_Letter_MECS_Rev_1.0.pdf

Acquisition Services Division IMMSS and IO&T Branch

(CEHNC-CT-A)

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, 88th RSC Medical Equipment Concentration Site (MECS) Operations, Ogden, UT

This is Revision 1.0 to the RFP. This revision changes the due date for proposals from Monday, 31 July 2017 to Friday, 04 August 2017. No other changes have been made. Discrepancies within the pricing template spreadsheet have been identified and are being corrected. Revision 02 of the pricing template spreadsheet will be uploaded 31 July 2017 to FBO.gov.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. You are requested to submit a firm fixed-price proposal to perform the required services in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 18 May 2017. The actual effort will be subject to the Service Contract Act of 1965 and as amended July, 1978. The applicable wage determination, WD 15-5484 (Rev -1); Revised 17 Jan 2017; Utah Counties of: Box Elder, Davis, Morgan, Weber, is available on the WDOL website: << http://www.wdol.gov/ >>.

This will be a C-type contract IAW FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items.

2. The proposal shall be submitted in accordance with the proposal format described below.

To expedite the processing of your proposal, we require that your proposal be signed by an Authorized Official who has authority to bind the company in an agreement with the Government.

3. All proposal documents, when printed, shall fit on 8 ½ x 11 inch paper to include spreadsheets with appropriate page breaks. Type font shall be Times New Roman 12 point, with 1 inch margins. All documents and spreadsheets shall include the Contractor Name, PWS Title, and Date. Ensure your proposal is submitted in PDF format. Spreadsheets shall be submitted as Excel documents.

4. The proposal shall identify the primary and alternate points of contact (POCs) for this effort. Information shall include the POC names, office telephone numbers, mobile telephone numbers (if available), and e-mail addresses.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Basis for Award: Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government as defined in FAR 2.101(b) –Definitions and as determined by the

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ENGINEERING AND SUPPORT CENTER, HUNTSVILLE

P.O. BOX 1600

HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA 35807-4301

REVISION 1.0

27 July 2017 evaluations described in this section. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer or offer with the highest merit rating after consideration of all factors. The KO will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency as defined in FAR 15.001.

Selection Criteria: Technical/Management Approach is considered significantly more important than Past Performance or Price in making a best value determination. Technical/ Management and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

In the event that two or more proposal evaluations are considered ESSENTIALLY equal, then the Price will be the deciding factor. Offerors will be evaluated based on the quality of proposals in light of both the evaluation factors and the proposal preparation instructions.

I. TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Page Totals for A, B, and C below shall not exceed 20 pages excluding price proposal spreadsheet, key personnel spreadsheet, personnel certifications/resumes, and cover pages. All proposal documents shall be formatted on 8 ½“ x 11” paper using 12 point font, single spaced to include spreadsheets (with appropriate page breaks, headers and footers). The Project Schedule shall be formatted to be legible when printed on 11x17 inch paper and will not count against the page limit. All documents and spreadsheets shall include the Contractor Name, PWS Title, and Date. Ensure your proposal is submitted in PDF format. Spreadsheets shall be submitted as unlocked Microsoft Excel documents. Tables are discouraged. Abuse of tables, charts, and graphs will be considered in deciding whether the page limits have been exceeded..

A. Phase-In Plan The offeror shall provide their approach to developing the Phase-In Plan, as identified in the PWS para. 3.2. The offeror shall provide an outline of the plan and their approach to addressing each of the components of the plan. The plan shall address at a minimum the following:

Establish a contractor project management office.

Recruit and hire necessary contractor personnel.

Obtain all required contractor personnel licenses, certifications, clearances, and TNAC checks.

Obtain Contractor and Government Issued Identification Media.

Obtain required Email accounts.

Joint contractor-Government inventories.

Develop and submit all required contractor deliverables.

Ensure contractor participation in post-award meetings, as required.

Complete all necessary training requirements of contractor personnel.

Establish procedures for contractor personnel to sign for Government

Property.

B. Technical Approach: Quality Control and Management Plans The Quality Control and Management Plans will establish the offeror’s technical approach for the operations of the MECS. It shall include:

Approach to Providing Quality Control Plan PWS 3.5.1– shall contain the offeror’s approach to provide comprehensive and detailed plan to develop and implement procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

Approach to Providing a Management Plan 3.16.2– The offeror shall address the bullets in PWS 3.16.2 and provide their approach to a sound management process for responding to changing priorities, enhancing customer service, and ensuring adequate levels of performance are maintained.

Any value added items being proposed (which may include execution methods).

Do not parrot the PWS. The Offeror shall, in addition to indicating that they will perform a task(s), re-stating “what” the task is, provide in sufficient detail “how” they will execute the task(s) as described in the PWS.

C. Overall Management Approach The Overall Management Approach shall include: (1) A brief description of the offeror’s approach to organizing personnel to accomplish the various activities required for the operations of the MECS; (2) A brief description of the qualifications of subcontractors and the relationship of their capabilities to the Prime; (3) A diagrammed organization chart of the contract execution structure. This information will be evaluated on the overall advantage it provides to the Government toward project success.

D. Qualifications of Contractor/Subcontractor Key Personnel The Contractor shall submit the qualifications IAW PWS 3.14 of the following Contractor and/or subcontractor personnel who will be the hands-on, technical leads directly responsible for the depth and direction of planning activities, data gathering, technical evaluations, and the content of deliverables in their area of expertise: Site Manager, Lead BioMedical Equipment Technician (BMET), and Medical Equipment QA Specialist. This submission will be done utilizing the Key Personnel Qualifications Worksheet and attached to the technical volume of the proposal.

Submissions should specifically address the qualifications listed in the worksheet (If a requirement calls for X years of experience, cite the X years, where and when). Resume’s may be included as an attachment to the proposal to augment the qualifications submissions, and will not count against the page number limit, but will not be used to satisfy the requirement. The following information shall be provided on each of these specialists: Name, highest education level obtained, specialized training directly related to their function in this Contract. The Contractor is expected to field the personnel identified in their proposal for the duration of the contract. Any changes or substitutions in the identified key personnel shall be approved by of the Contracting Officer prior to making any changes. Key personnel will be evaluated on the qualifications in their specialty as related to fulfilling the work requirements in the PWS for this Contract. Information on the team leads shall not exceed 1 page per individual.

II. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate past performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii)-Past Performance Evaluation, in terms of relevancy to the performance work statement, quality of previous work provided, and ability to successfully maintain project schedules, dedication to cost containment, customer satisfaction, and compliance with contract requirements. This information may be obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for contracts where the contractor has not yet completed the contract. Where a contractor has completed a contract, the Government will use the contractor’s performance on any relevant previous contracts to evaluate past performance, in addition to any information the Government may choose to obtain from PPIRS. The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than PPIRS or earlier contract performance when evaluating past performance.

The Government considers previous performance within the past 3 years as recent. The Government considers previous performance that is similar in size, scope and complexity as relevant.

The contractor shall submit up to two (2) examples of recent and relevant past performance in the proposal. Past performance shall be rated in terms of relevance, risk and level of confidence in the Offeror’s projected performance.

The table below illustrates how the relevancy of past performance will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Table- Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. Further, the Government may base its judgment about the quality of an Offeror’s past performance on (1) records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and (2) statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an Offeror’s performance, or about the quality of an Offeror’s overall performance.

The table below illustrates how past performance risk will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be given a rating of Neutral.

Table- Past Performance Risk Ratings

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

The table below illustrates how the level of confidence in the Offeror’s projected performance will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Table- Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

III. PRICE

The proposed price shall be submitted on the Pricing Template for MECS Replacement.xlsx form provided in the enclosed excel file. Each task identified must be separately priced. Lump sum pricing without breakdowns will be considered a deficiency in the proposal. The Parts/Consumables, and Tools/Equipment cost is stated at $1,500,000.00 and shall be the only non-labor costs indicated. The excel file contains three pages, the first two are for base and option year pricing, the third is for providing labor categories and rates being offered. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure spreadsheets are completed in full and without error. If any one or more of the Price Proposal forms is not completed it will be considered a deficiency in the proposal.

The price portion of the proposal will be subjectively evaluated and a best value analysis of the proposal, as a whole, performed to determine the best value to the Government. The proposed price will be assessed for fair and reasonableness and unbalanced pricing.

OTHER INFORMATION

PRE-PROPOSAL SITE VISIT: A Bidder’s Site Visit will be held at 1300 on 11 July 2017 at 649 West 400 North, (Bldg 11C), Ogden, UT 84404-1372. Each Offeror will be allowed no more than two personnel. Attendance is not required to submit a proposal.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE CALL: There will not be a pre-proposal phone call associated with this RFP.

COMMENTS AND INQUIRIES: The Offeror will be required to forward all comments and inquiries regarding this RFP via email NLT 4:00 pm Central Time, Tuesday, 18 July 2017, to the contacts provided below. All comments and inquiries will be addressed by the Government and responses distributed to all Offerors via email.

CONTACTS:

a. The Offeror shall NOT engage into any form of contact with installation personnel/or Installation DPW personnel, nor any MEDCOM and/or HFPA personnel regarding this requirement prior to submission of proposal and Contract Award. Contact regarding the requirements set forth in this RFP shall only occur with the Contracting Officer and/or Contract Specialist. Discussions or information obtained via other sources could make you ineligible for award if deemed a Conflict of Interest or a Violation of Procurement Integrity Act.

b. Offeror proposals shall be submitted to:

Name Email Phone

Chris Shepard christopher.t.shepard@usace.army.mil (256) 895- 2509

Jeff Roberts Jeffrey.c.roberts@usace.army.mil (256) 895- 1350

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

a. You are requested to furnish your proposal by electronic transmission not later than 2:00 PM CDT (Huntsville Local Time), 31 July 04 August 2017. All information will be protected as procurement sensitive.

Sincerely, HILLARY S. ROY

Contracting Officer

Encls

Exhibit 1. Pricing Template for MECS Replacement Form (excel file) Exhibit 2. Key Personnel Qualifications Worksheet Exhibit 3. MECS Equipment Stationing Package Directive