Attachment_1_Evaluation_Plan_and_Proposal_Instructions_W912L8-18-R-0009.docx

ATTACHMENT 1

EVALUATION PLAN

For

AMMED

Part-time Dentist Support Services

W912L8-18-R-0009

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a new single Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Purchase Order (PO). 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 the appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price/Cost. The Technical Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Price/Cost Factor. When combined, the non- Price/Cost Factors are significantly more important than the Price/Cost Factor. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest Price/Cost offered or the Offeror with the highest Technical Factor rating.

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1(f) (4), the Government reserves the right to evaluate offers and make award without seeking additional information from Offeror’s through discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determined them to be necessary.

Failure to provide proposals that comply with any requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may render the Offeror's proposal non-compliant and be grounds for rejection. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

B. FORMAL COMMUNICATION, OFFEROR EXPLANATIONS

The Contracting Officer is the SOLE POINT OF CONTACT for this acquisition. Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the solicitation, for proposals, Performance Work Statement (PWS), etc., must be requested in writing and with sufficient time allowed for a reply to reach Offerors before the submission of their offer. A cut-off date for receiving questions concerning the Request for Proposal has been established as 06 August 2018. Responses will be posted not later than two days prior to closing. Because of the tight time constraints involved in this requirement, questions will not be addressed after that date. After 06 August 2018, sufficient time will not be available to answer questions and give ample time for the interested Offerors to make changes or respond. The time limits for this requirement will not be extended.

The Contracting Officer reserves the right to address questions received after the cutoff date with those offers deemed responsive and/or in the competitive range (if established) after closing. OFFERORS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS EARLY IN THIS PROCESS. Any interpretations made will be in the form of an amendment of the solicitation and will be furnished to all prospective Offerors via posting to our web site at: www.ebuy.gsa.gov Explanations or instructions given in a form other than an amendment to the solicitation shall not be binding. Questions (on a non-attribution basis) and answers shall be furnished to all prospective Offerors via the website.

Submit proposal questions by Email to the contracting office at the addresses shown below:

USPFO for West Virginia, Contracting Office Subject Line: WVNG Solicitation W912L8-18-R-0009 Part-time Dentist Support Services Email: erica.d.oldaker.civ@mail.mil

AMENDMENTS PRIOR TO DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS: The right is reserved, as the interest of the Government may require, to revise or amend the solicitation prior to and/or after the date set for receipt of proposals as necessary. Such amendments, if any, will be announced by an amendment(s) to this Request for Proposal. All information relating to this RFP, including pertinent changes/amendments and information prior to the date set for receipt of proposals will be posted on the following website: www.ebuy.gsa.gov. Though every effort will be made to provide email notification when a change is posted, such notification is NOT guaranteed and should not be expected. Offerors are strongly cautioned to check this site frequently and to “REFRESH” their web page to ensure they have the latest information.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

1. Factor 1 – Technical

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance

3. Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non-cost/price evaluation Factors except Past Performance:

a. 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.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

e. Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's 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.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price/cost. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional price/cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional price/cost for additional merit

The overarching evaluation approach for the Technical Factor 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 are 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. The evaluation will consider the realism of the proposed hours and labor mix.

FACTOR 1-TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor will consist of the following:

Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach, knowledge and understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS): (1) Part-time Dentist Support Service

Sub-factor 1: Capability and Experience

1. Proposal should demonstrate an understanding of the requirements as outlined in the Performance Work Statement. The proposal should provide a definitive approach to achieve the end results that are set forth in the requirements.

2. If a Joint Venture/teaming arrangement or major subcontractors is contemplated, provide detailed information regarding the JV/teaming arrangement/major subcontractors. Provide details on how each member of the team will have a positive effect on your overall capability to provide quality, timely services.

3. Proposal should include Offerors strategy for performing all task requirements within the State of West Virginia in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.

4. The proposal should include an understanding of all applicable installation/facility access and local security policies and procedures as outlined in the Performance Work Statement.

Sub- factor 2: Employee Attraction, Retention and Management Plan

1. Offeror should provide a narrative of management’s technical capabilities for attracting and recruiting top-quality employees with the technical skills, expertise and experience needed to accomplish this contract. Include supporting material (matrix, charts or other graphics) determined necessary for the Government to fully understand the Offeror’s methodology and approach. **** There are incumbents for this requirement.

2. Proposal should include a brief narrative of Offeror’s approach and investment to retain top-quality personnel; including strategy for overall administration and personnel management.

3. The Offeror should include a detailed plan for ensuring there is no impact on services during scheduled (vacation) and /or unscheduled absences (illness) to primary employees.

4. The proposal should address the methodology for determining adequate staffing to provide supervision, and the strategy to provide adequate supervision of all personnel.

Sub-factor 3: Compensation Plan

1. Offerors shall submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Reference FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

2. Multiple Compensation Plans. For JV/Teaming arrangement(s) and subcontractors, provide details about each member’s compensation plan as well as the Prime’s plan. If multiple compensation plans are provided, the Government will evaluate the lowest rated plan. If members participating in the contract will provide the same compensation plan (pay and benefits) as the Prime (at a minimum), then a signed statement from each participating member, will suffice to meet these requirements in lieu of submitting each plan.

TECHNICAL FACTOR RATINGS

The Technical Factor ratings, shown in Table 1 below, will receive a color/adjectival rating.

Table 1

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Yellow

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Element are ineligible for award.

The adjectival and color rating from the table has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the table below. For FFP contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk rating descriptions.

FACTOR 2-PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror and its major/key Subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on the resultant contract. Major/key Subcontractors are defined as those whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price. For parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, explain how the resources of these entities will perform on the instant effort. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offeror past performance. A single performance confidence assessment will be established.

For the purpose of evaluating proposals, recent is defined as occurring within the following time standards; 1) occurring within the past three years from the RFP release date, or 2) awarded earlier than three years ago, but for which performance occurred within the past three years from the RFP release date. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. Relevant is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this service. “Relevant” is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item.

This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offeror’s detailed record of: 1) compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship; 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customer’s interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

Based on the Offeror’s previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three (3) years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

Performance Relevancy Assessment: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offerors past performance to determine if work performed in the past is relevant as defined above. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, and what is not relevant. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Confidence Assessment: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed under the contract scope. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment

The following definition as it relates to the Past Performance Factor shall be used in the evaluation process:

Adverse Past Performance - Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

NOTE TO OFFEROR: Offerors are advised that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral Confidence. Sources of existing information available to the Government include, but are not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), PPIRS, FAPIIS, and Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS). The Government may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to use or not use past performance information submitted by the Offeror based on whether or not adequate recorded past performance information is available in its Federal databases.

FACTOR 3- COST/PRICE

This requirement will be a FFP contract type. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the fixed priced effort. The Cost/Price Factor will not be scored nor receive an adjectival rating.

A total evaluated price will be calculated for each Offeror and used in a tradeoff analysis in order to determine the best value. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

A price analysis shall be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine the evaluated cost of performance for each Offeror. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the offeror or contractor when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price. Contracting officers shall obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data from the offeror or contractor for all acquisitions (including commercial item acquisitions), if that is the contracting officer’s only means to determine the price to be fair and reasonable. Calculation is based upon the proposed proposal totals.

The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of buy in), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

When required by DFARS 215.371 or deemed necessary by the PCO per FAR 15.404-1(c), a cost analysis may be performed.

E. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (SECTION L)

Introduction: This section contains general proposal submissions instructions as well as specific proposal requirements for the AMEDD Part-time Dentist Support Services.

The proposal must not repeat the RFP requirements, but rather must provide convincing evidence in support of conclusive statements of how contract requirements will be met.

Failure to provide proposals in compliance with any requirements of the RFP may be render the Offeror's proposal non-compliant and be grounds for rejection.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors shall provide information by addressing each Factor/Element in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. The Offerors must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make a best value assessment of the Offeror’s capability to support the proposed response to the evaluation criteria. Proposals that do not contain the information requested in the solicitation risk being determined unacceptable by the Government. The Government will not assume the Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, or commitment not specified in the proposal.

The proposal must not merely repeat the solicitation requirements, but rather must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of conclusive statements of how contract requirements will be met.

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual must be submitted in writing (emailed) to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. No direct discussion between the technical representative and a prospective Offeror will be conducted. Communications will be conducted via e-mail. Questions shall be sent to the following points of contact, and proposals shall be submitted by email to the following point of contacts:

Contract Specialist: Erica Oldaker E-mail: erica.d.oldaker.civ@mail.mil

Each proposal shall be submitted in the English language and consist of and include all of the following:

Acknowledgment of all amendments to the RFP and all continuation sheets are to be filled in as directed, i.e., any fill-ins required. Offerors are directed to thoroughly read the RFP and fill in the required information in the appropriate RFP clauses. For any fill-ins that are not applicable, the Offeror must acknowledge by indicating “N/A.”

Representations through System for Award Management. The purpose of electronic Representations and Certifications is to provide all Offerors with a portal in which to submit Reps/Certs in a publicly accessible format, nullifying the requirement to submit identical information in response to each and every Federal contract solicitation. As a requirement under this solicitation, all Offerors must submit Reps/Certs data into the System for Award Management (S.A.M.) at https://www.sam.gov/. Any Offeror that has previously submitted Reps/Certs data into SAM is reminded to update the data prior to submitting with the proposal.

FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS

Proposal Format: The Offeror’s proposal shall be divided into separate volumes based on the Factors as set forth below and all information specific to each Element shall be confined to that volume. Each proposal must include all volumes and shall be submitted by the closing date, time, and method of transmission listed in the RFP. Proposals shall be valid for a period of at least 90 days from time of proposal submission.

Each page of the proposal documents shall include the Offeror’s name, RFP identification and volume number in the page header. Each proposal shall contain a sanitized and un-sanitized cost/price proposal. Each volume shall be in uncompressed files. Self-extracting “.exe” files will not be acceptable. Hyperlinks and ZIP files are NOT permitted.

Information shall be confined to the appropriate section of the proposal to facilitate independent evaluation. Price/Cost information must not be contained in the Technical proposal documents. Each section of the Technical proposal must be independent of the others. The proposal should be clear and concise, logically assembled, and indexed.

Table 4 – Proposal Sections / Page Limits

Proposal Volume / Section

Page Limits* (Maximums)

VOLUME 1 – Technical

20 pages

VOLUME II – Past Performance

2 per reference (see Attachment 2 for required template)

VOLUME III – Cost/Price ( to include Sanitized and Un-Sanitized versions)

No limit

Volume I: Factor I - Technical (Maximum of 20 pages) Volume II: Factor II - Past Performance Volume III: Factor III - Cost/Price

*Any excess pages will be removed and not be evaluated.

The proposal text shall be in MS Word 2013 compatible format, shall have 1” margins on all sides, be single-spaced, use Times New Roman font, color black, font size of 12, letter size 8 ½” x 11”. Those portions of the proposal requiring MS Excel submissions shall be in MS Excel 2013 compatible format. The illustrations (e.g., graphics figures, graphs, and tables) may be in landscape or portrait format with font colors other than black and font sizes 8 through 12 are considered acceptable. Illustrations are not excluded from the page limitation.

Each volume shall be as brief as possible, consistent with complete submission. The page count will be made by counting the pages from left to right, consecutively. Pages that exceed the page limitation will be returned to the Offeror and will not be evaluated. Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Annexes, documentation and attachments that are submitted by the Offeror, which are not required as part of the RFP, will count against the page limitations. If pages are printed on both sides, each side will count as a separate page. The following will not count against page limitations: volume title pages, table of contents pages, cross-referencing pages, indices, acronym lists and page dividers (used to separate proposal sections).

SPECIFIC PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Volume 1 - Technical Proposal: The Technical Volume shall not exceed 20 pages. Offeror will follow the below outline when providing there technical volume. The Technical Volume shall consist of the following and address each element in detail. Offerors shall be required to provide all PWS requirements. The Offerors shall provide a clear explanation of their Technical Approach with details on how the contractor will meet the solicitation requirements. The contractor shall demonstrate a complete understanding of, their experience with providing the Part-time Dentist Support Services.

Volume 2 - Past Performance: This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar contracts. Offerors shall identify pertinent past history, which indicates that similar efforts of equal or greater complexity have been performed using the Offeror’s existing capability and demonstrate satisfaction of customer requirements. Failure to provide any of the required reference information detailed below for this factor will result in non-evaluation of the proposed reference(s).

Offerors shall submit a maximum of the three most recent and relevant Government (Federal and DoD) contracts as a prime, and a maximum of two of the most recent and relevant Government contracts for each major subcontractors occurring within the past three years from the release date of the RFP that are similar in size and scope to requirements of the RFP. Major/key subcontractors are defined as a subcontractor who is performing 25% or more of the total proposed cost/price. Offerors are advised to submit single contracts or single task orders placed under an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract (under FAR 16.501-1); or a single order placed under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (FAR 8.405-3, 13.303). Each task order submitted will be considered one of the references permitted per the above guidance. An IDIQ contract reference without an order number will not be considered in the past performance evaluation. Data concerning the prime Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, in alphabetical order.

The Government plans to rely on existing documentation from Federal databases to the maximum extent practicable. Sources of existing information available to the Government include, but are not limited to, PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS. The Government may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government reserves the right to use or not use past performance information submitted by the Offeror based on whether or not adequate recorded past performance information is available in its Federal databases. Since the Government may not necessarily interview any or all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offerors. This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format (a template has been provide in Attachment 2):

(a) Contractor/Subcontractor place of performance, Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and POC within the prime contractor organization (name, current address, e-mail address, and telephone and fax numbers). PLEASE NOTE: While an Offeror may submit past performance information on relevant efforts where they performed as a major subcontractor, the Government does not have privity with subcontracts and therefore, may not be able to obtain qualitative information.

(b) Government contracting activity, and current address, Procuring Contracting Officer's name, e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(c) Governments technical representative/Contracting Officer Representatives name, current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(e) Government contract administration activity's Pre-Award Monitor's name, current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

(f) Contract Number and, in the case of IDIQ type contracts, General Schedule Administration contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include the Indefinite Delivery contract number and order number of the single task order to be considered.

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Materials (T&M), etc.) In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.)).

(h) Awarded price or estimated cost and fee.

(i) Final or projected final price or cost and fee.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(2) Section 2 - Performance. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1 describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of the RFP. Narrative explanations are limited to two pages per contract/order. The prime Offeror and each major subcontractor shall cite the PWS numbers in the instant RFP which are relevant to the work described in this section.

(a) For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offeror shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. The Offeror shall also provide a copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination.

Volume 3 –Price/Cost: Due to the anticipated competition for this effort, certified cost or pricing data is not required. Pursuant to DFARS 215.371, certified cost or pricing data may be required when only one offer is received.

The Offeror shall provide a price/cost proposal broken down in accordance with the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror’s proposal shall contain sufficient cost documentation for analysis and evaluation of the proposed price.

For evaluation purposes only, a breakdown of all cost elements shall also be provided for the Part-time Dentist Support Services; demonstrating exactly what the loaded labor rates consist of. This labor rate breakout shall include all direct, indirect, general and administrative costs, CMR Reporting, and profit associated with providing the required skills. Contract support management costs cannot be separately billed and must be included. The fully-burdened labor rates shall include all labor and labor-related costs, such as, but not limited to, the following list of representative labor-related costs: salaries, wages, bonuses, employee insurance, fringe benefits, contributions to pension, other post-retirement benefits, annuity, employee incentive compensation plans, incentive pay, vacation time, sick pay, holidays and all other allowances based upon a comprehensive employee compensation plan. The use of uncompensated overtime is not allowed. Offerors shall propose all hourly rates based on an 835 productive hours per year (16 hours per week). Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals. Requests for this additional information are not to be construed as discussions.