W912P523R0002 A0001 Solicitation Amendment_Nashville District Medical Surveillance Program.pdf

W912P523R0002

W38XDD2075432

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

PROJECT: USACE Nashville District (LRN) Medical Surveillance Program PURPOSE: Amendment of Solicitation W912P523R0002 to:

1.) Provide Government answ ers to questions received from Industry 2.) Update estimated quantities from 450 to 45 for Nashville Metro Area Annual Estimated Workload (See Question 5 and Government Answ er) 3.) Remove testing requirement for Tonometry from Scope of Work (See Question 4 and Government Answ er) 4.) FAR 52.252-3 has been updated.

Note: The deadline for submission of proposals remains unchanged and is not extended by this Amendment.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 38

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 08-Feb-2023

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 W912P523R0002

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Jan-2023

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 is extended, X 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

08-Feb-2023

CODE

CELRN-RC-N CONTRACTING BRANCH

110 9TH AVE SOUTH, A405

NASHVILLE TN 37203

W912P5 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

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:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Solicitation W912P523R0002 LRN Medical Surveillance Program Questions and Answers

1. Regarding item b of the medical examinations list on page 22 of the instructions, conditions, and notices:

Reproductive Cancer Screening (Female), can you please clarify the diagnostic test or procedures needed to meet this requirement?

A: Test collected in the clinic or at home and sent to lab for analysis.

2. Regarding item f of the medical examinations list on page 22 of the instructions, conditions, and notices:

Colorectal Cancer Screening, can you please clarify the diagnostic test or procedures needed to meet this requirement?

A: Test collected in the clinic or at home and sent to lab for analysis.

3. Regarding item k of the medical examinations list on page 22 of the instructions, conditions, and notices:

Tonometry, is Tonometry always required, or only in certain locations or instances? If so, can you provide the specific locations that would be required?

A: In Accordance with EM 385-1-1 16.B.05 a. (1)-(5) defines the vision requirements for crane operators.

Tonometry is not a listed as a requirement and will therefore be removed.

4. Regarding item bb of the medical examinations list on page 22 of the instructions, conditions, and notices: Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Quant (B), Dichloromethane, 1-1-1 Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Dichlorobenzene, Chloroform, are you looking for laboratory testing specific to each substance listed, or alternatively are you seeking comprehensive medical and screening protocols for each hazardous material listed?

A: LRN is not looking for laboratory testing specific to each of the listed chemicals. We are looking for tests specific to the above listed chemical as exposure based contingencies in order to test, treat and determine the need for follow-up.

5. On page 21, row m, scheduling, is the 450 accurate for the annual workload estimate for the Nashville Metropolitan Area?

A: No. correct number is 45.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

52.252-3 ALTERATIONS IN SOLICITATION (APR 1984)

Portions of this solicitation are altered as follows:

Amendment 0001:

PROJECT: USACE Nashville District (LRN) Medical Surveillance Program PURPOSE: Amendment of Solicitation W912P523R0002 to:

1.) Provide Government answers to questions received from Industry 2.) Update estimated quantities from 450 to 45 for Nashville Metro Area Annual Estimated Workload (See Question 5 and Government Answer) 3.) Remove testing requirement for Tonometry from Scope of Work (See Question 4 and Government Answer) 4.) FAR 52.252-3 has been updated.

Note: The deadline for submission of proposals remains unchanged and is not extended by this Amendment.

(End of Clause)

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO EVALUATION FACTORS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR

AWARD

PROPOSAL CONTENT

1.0 ORGANIZATION. Proposals shall be organized as follows

Past Performance Proposal

Factor I- Performance Confidence Assessment

Technical Proposal

Price Proposal

Factor III – Price

Tab A – Proposal Data Sheet Tab B – SF33 and acknowledged amendments (if any) Tab C – Section B – Schedule of Prices Tab D – Section K (unless available at SAM.GOV)

2.0 CONTENT

2.1 Content of Volume I, Factor I – Performance Confidence Assessment

2.1.1 Provide descriptions for up to five (5) of the company’s operation and maintenance projects that are 30% or more complete within the last ten (10) years for projects which are similar to this project in scope and magnitude. Provide a complete project detail sheet of contracting experience including Federal, State, and local government and private sector contracts that demonstrates your capability to perform the work specified in this solicitation. A Project Detail Sheet is included at the end of this section for your use.

Use as many forms as necessary to meet the criteria. If you elect not to use the form, all information identified on the form is still required for evaluation of this item and should be ordered the same. Include the names and background of any predecessor companies.

Similar in scope is defined as contracts with substantial efforts for tasks involving the following:

a. Comprehensive Medical Exam (Medical Surveillance/HAZMAT)

b. Reproductive Cancer Screening (Female)

c. Audiometry

d. B-Reading

e. Chest X-Ray P/A

f. Colorectal Cancer Screening

g. Electrocardiogram

h. Spirometry

i. Best Vision

j. Comprehensive Vision

k. Vital Signs, Height/Weight

l. Scheduling

m. Venipuncture

n. Physician – Occupational Medicine Consultant (per hour)

o. Record Review – Physician (per hour)

p. Medical Review Officer (per hour)

q. Audiology Review (per record)

r. Record Processing (per hour)

s. Missed Appointment Fees (per occurrence)

t. Blood Type & Rh

u. Cholinesterase RBC and Plasma

v. SMA 20

w. Lead – Industrial whole blood

x. PCBs

y. PSA

z. ZPP, Blood Protoporphyrin’s, zinc

aa. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Quant (B); Dichloromethane, 1-1-1 Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Dichlorobenzene, Chloroform

bb. Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase

cc. Hepatitis B Surface Antibody (QL)

dd. Lyme’s Disease AB Screen

ee. Hepatitis A Vaccination #1

ff. Hepatitis A Vaccination #2

gg. Hepatitis B Vaccination #1

hh. Hepatitis B Vaccination #2

ii. Hepatitis B Vaccination #3

jj. Hepatitis A/B Combination #1

kk. Hepatitis A/B Combination #2

ll. Hepatitis A/B Combination #3

mm. Influenza Vaccination

nn. Tetanus Diphtheria Vaccination

oo. Tuberculosis Skin Test

2.1.2 If Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies (joint venture) for the purpose of this RFP, then include each company’s role in the projects listed in this paragraph as related to its role for this project. If the Joint Venture partners have never worked together on similar jobs, so indicate. However, if the firms have worked together on other type jobs, include these, and address the working relationships on those jobs.

2.1.3 References should be provided for all past performance submitted on a Project Detail Sheet or its equivalent. The Offeror may identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, local government and private) for recent and relevant work by submitting Past Performance Questionnaires on Form PPQ-0 (“PPQ”) included at the end of this section. Page 1 of the PPQ should be submitted with your proposal. USACE requests that the Offeror’s client completes this full questionnaire and submits directly to Dellaria.L.Martin@usace.army.mil via email at Dellaria.L.Martin@usace.army.mil or via fax at 615-736-7986 prior to proposal closing date. In the event that a completed PPQ is not received from the Offeror’s client prior to the proposal closing date, USACE reserves the right to contact such client to obtain a completed PPQ.

The PPQ included in the solicitation is provided for the Offeror and its team members to submit to the client for each project the Offeror includes in its proposal for Factor I. The client should ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for their point of contact. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the PPQs are provided in a timely matter. So, Offerors are encouraged to follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other RFPs. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. Performance recognition documents received within the last ten (10) years such as awards, award fee determinations, customer letters of commendation, and any other forms of performance recognition should be included.

In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/UEI numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror. The Government may not contact all of the identified client references/ points of contact.

This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

2.2 Content of Factor III - Price Proposal (separate package)

The Offeror shall submit a completed Proposal Data Sheet. The format is provided at the end of this section. The Offeror shall also submit SF 1449 and Section B, Proposal Price Schedule and Section K Representations and Certifications, in original only. Unless available at SAM.GOV, Offerors shall submit all representations and certifications at Section K, including those incorporated by reference. See FAR Solicitation Provision 52.252-1 for instructions on how to obtain the full-text provisions.

Note: If any Amendments are issued against this Solicitation, the Offeror shall include its acknowledgment of those Amendments by returning the signed amendments with its proposal and/or filling in block number 14 of the SF 1449 and submitting the signed document with its proposal. The SF 1449, block number 24 must be completed by an authorized person from the company. Failure to acknowledge amendments and/or sign the SF33 may result in the Offeror’s proposal being removed from consideration. If the company is a joint venture, then all members of the joint venture must sign. The Offeror shall submit proof of financial capability consisting of the most recent financial statement covering assets and liabilities. The firm’s banking institution name, address, point of contact (POC) name, POC email and telephone number shall also be provided.

Project Detail Sheet Project Name & Location: Contract Number:

Description of Work Related to Solicitation:

Firm role (prime, joint venture, subcontractor):

Type (service, construction, etc) and % of work self-performed:

Extent and Type of Work Subcontracted:

Additional detail should include work conditions and any relevant challenges overcome on the project:

Total Dollar Value at Award: $ Award Date:

Annual Dollar Value at Award: $

Contract Duration: Percentage of Work Complete:

POC for Reference (Name, Title, Address, Email address, Phone Number and Fax Number):

POC for Contractor Representative (Name, Title, Address, Email address, Phone Number and Fax Number):

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0)

CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: UEI Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND

SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED

QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS. CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY

ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER,

QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR

FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY

AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M

U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance

E VG S M

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E

VG

S

M

U

N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer?

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force?

E VG

S M

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)

E VG

S M

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed E VG S M U N price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client

E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section.

Yes

No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below.

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.

E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.

E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks. Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):

PROPOSAL DATA SHEET

PROJECT: Cheatham Lake Operation and Maintenance Services

1. IDENTIFICATION OF OFFEROR

Name of Firm:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email:

Unique Entity Identifier (UEI#):

2. IDENTIFICATION OF JOINT VENTURE PARTICIPANTS

Provide any other assigned number that identifies the member firm(s) in the ACASS or CCASS databases. If a separate UEI has been created for a joint venture, it must also be submitted. Provide a UEI number for each company identified in any proposed Contractor-subcontractor association of firms. If the firm is a joint venture or contractor-subcontractor association of firms, list the individual firms and briefly describe the nature of the association. Provide UEI# for each.

Firm 1:

Firm 2:

Firm 3:

Nature of Association:

3. AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS

Reference FAR 52.215-1. The Offeror represents that the following persons are authorized to negotiate on its behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP.

Name of Negotiator:

Negotiator’s Address:

Negotiator’s Telephone:

Negotiator’s E-mail:

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Proposal Evaluation. A Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) comprised of representatives of the Government will evaluate all proposals. In accordance with FAR 15.305, the proposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The SSEB will review and rate each proposal without knowledge of the price offered. The number of offers and identities of Offerors are not revealed to anyone who is not involved in the evaluation and award process, or to other Offerors.

Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and material unbalancing. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors described herein, utilizing the tradeoff process to obtain the best value for the Government.

1.2 Definitions of key evaluation terms:

Adverse Past Performance is past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications are exchanges, between the Government and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Competitive Range See FAR 15.306(c).

Deficiency is 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.

Discussions are negotiations conducted in a competitive acquisition. Discussions take place after establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice (EN) is a written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or in support of discussions.

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost of degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is 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.

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

Strength is 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.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost 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).

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

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 The evaluation process consists of four parts: 1) past performance review 2) technical/quality evaluation,

3) price evaluation and 4) past performance/price/technical tradeoff.

2.2 Proposal Compliance Review. Compliance review is an initial check to ensure that all required forms and certifications are complete and past performance proposal, technical proposal, and price proposal were received.

Specifically, the initial review will verify that the Past Performance Proposal and Technical Proposal address Factors I-II at a minimum. Further, the initial review will verify the Price Proposal is in a separate, sealed and marked envelope. Pages in the Past Performance Proposal and Technical Proposal exceeding the total page limit will be removed prior to the evaluation and not evaluated.

2.3 SSEB Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate those proposals passing the Proposal Compliance Review. The SSEB will review and rate the content and quality of each evaluation factor against the specified evaluation criteria in the Solicitation requirement.

2.3.1 Factor I will be rated based on relevance and confidence.

2.3.2 Factors II will be rated using an adjectival-based system.

2.3.3 Factor III will be evaluated by the SSEB for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing after the completion of the past performance and technical evaluations.

2.3.4 Evaluation Documentation. The Government will support each rating with narrative statements, describing proposal strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties.

2.4 SSEB Ratings

2.4.1 Ratings for Factor I-Performance Confidence Assessment. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The SSEB shall assign one of the following ratings to the past performance information evaluated:

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 SSEB will then review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the following table.

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

2.4.2 Ratings for Factor II – Technical Proposal. The SSEB shall assign one of the following ratings to the information provided in response to Factor II:

RATING DESCRIPTION

OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

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

ACCEPTABLE

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

MARGINAL

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

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2.5 Price Evaluation. The SSEB will evaluate price proposals after the evaluation of the technical/quality evaluation. Price information will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing.

2.6 Past Performance/Price/Technical Proposal Trade-off Analysis. After all evaluations described above are complete, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of technical proposals and compare prices, considering all factors, to determine the proposal offering the best value to the Government.

3.0 BASIS OF AWARD.

The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price requirement services contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal the SSA determines to conform to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price. The evaluation factors are hereby listed in descending order of importance: Performance Confidence Assessment, Technical Proposal, and Price. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than Price. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer or to reject all offers. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor. Offerors are reminded to include their best technical and price terms in their initial offer and not to assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer. Proposals are intended to be evaluated and an award made without discussions with Offerors unless discussions are determined to be necessary.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS.

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors below.

4.1 Evaluation of Factor I –Performance Confidence Assessment.

The SSEB will evaluate both the extent and quality of the Offeror’s experience described in the proposal. Well-documented self-performance of projects (30% or more complete) within the past ten (10) years that are similar in scope and magnitude to this project will be rated more relevant than subcontracted work or work that is less than 30% complete.

Projects performed by contractors other than the Offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as prime contractor experience, unless those other contractors are part of a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror, as demonstrated by a signed JV agreement. If the Offeror represents the combining of two or more companies (JV) for the purpose of this RFP, the JV will be evaluated as a single Offeror. The experience of each joint venture partner will be evaluated based on each partner’s role in cited past work and in the proposed JV role for this project.

The SSEB will evaluate recent and relevant past performance to assess the degree of performance risk involved in accepting each Offeror’s proposal. If the firm is divided into severable segments (e.g., division, group, or unit) the Government will evaluate only the past performance of those segments of the firm(s) that will actually perform the work.

For the purposes of evaluation, recent is defined as current work or work completed within the past ten (10) years. The SSEB will first evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection, as defined above. The SSEB will then review past performance information to determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the performance confidence assessment, considering quality of service (record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates) and timeliness of performance (record of meeting milestones and delivery schedules, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction). The Government reserves the right to check any or all cited references to verify supplied information and to assess offeror’s past performance.

The Government may also use other tools such as CPARS, PPIRS, contacting references, etc., to gather information regarding an Offeror’s qualifications and past performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be rated as unknown confidence (neutral), having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

4.2 Evaluation of Factor II Technical Proposal

4.2.1 The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the adequacy and realism of their plan for performing Task Orders for the medical evaluation services indicated throughout this SSP.

4.2.2 Plans proposing personnel (current employees or proposed employees supported by letters of commitment) with more than two (2) years of recent experience (within the last 10 years) with similar work or contracts will be rated more favorably than Technical Proposals proposing less experienced employees (current or proposed).

4.2.3 Plans proposing subcontractors supported by letters of commitment will be rated more favorably than subcontractors not supported by letters of commitment.

4.2.4 Plans proposing use of qualified and or licensed individuals, when qualifications and/or licenses are supported by documentary evidence of such licenses (i.e., copies of licenses or certificates, etc.), will be rated more favorably than Technical Proposals proposing use of qualified and or licensed individuals not similarly supported by documentary evidence of such certificates or licenses.

4.3 Evaluation of Factor III – Price.

Price proposals will be evaluated by the SSEB for fairness, reasonableness, price realism and for material unbalancing through the use of price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Should certified cost and pricing data be required, then cost analysis may be performed to determine realism and reasonableness. Price will not be scored in the same way or with the same narrative terminology as the Technical Proposal nor will price be numerically scored. Instead, the SSEB will evaluate the price and prepare a brief narrative on the Evaluation Summary.

The price proposal will be reviewed for completeness and compatibility with the technical proposal. The reasonableness of each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the Government’s cost estimates and the Offeror’s technical approach to the scope of work. Even though the total contract price for the Base and all Option Years will be evaluated, the primary emphasis will not be placed only on the lowest price.

The price proposal will also be evaluated for proportionality to assure that it is not materially unbalanced. The offer is unbalanced when the price of one or more items in the price schedule are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis. The Government may reject an offer as unacceptable if it is materially unbalanced as to the prices for the basic requirement and the option quantities.

ADDENDUM TO INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS & NOTICES TO OFFEROR

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1 Intent: The intent of this solicitation is to select one contractor for the Medical Surveillance Services for the Nashville District.

1.2 Project Description: The Nashville District Contracting Division has a requirement from the

Nashville District Operations Division to provide medical surveillance services for the 6 LRN District Areas (Metro Nashville Area, Western Kentucky Area, Mid-Tennessee River Area, East-Tennessee River Area, Mid-Cumberland Area, and the Eastern Kentucky Area).

Medical examinations include:

c. Audiometry

d. B-Reading

e. Chest X-Ray P/A

f. Colorectal Cancer Screening

g. Electrocardiogram

h. Spirometry

i. Best Vision

j. Comprehensive Vision

k. Vital Signs, Height/Weight

l. Scheduling

m. Venipuncture

n. Physician – Occupational Medicine Consultant (per hour)

o. Record Review – Physician (per hour)

p. Medical Review Officer (per hour)

q. Audiology Review (per record)

r. Record Processing (per hour)

s. Missed Appointment Fees (per occurrence)

t. Blood Type & Rh

u. Cholinesterase RBC and Plasma

v. SMA 20

w. Lead – Industrial whole blood

x. PCBs

y. PSA

z. ZPP, Blood Protoporphyrin’s, zinc

aa. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Quant (B); Dichloromethane, 1-1-1 Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Dichlorobenzene, Chloroform

bb. Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase

cc. Hepatitis B Surface Antibody (QL)

dd. Lyme’s Disease AB Screen

ee. Hepatitis A Vaccination #1

ff. Hepatitis A Vaccination #2

gg. Hepatitis B Vaccination #1

hh. Hepatitis B Vaccination #2

ii. Hepatitis B Vaccination #3

jj. Hepatitis A/B Combination #1

kk. Hepatitis A/B Combination #2

ll. Hepatitis A/B Combination #3

mm. Influenza Vaccination

1.3 Basis of Selection of Award: This is “Best Value – Tradeoff” solicitation, as it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

1.4 Type of Contract: The Government intends to award one firm-fixed price requirements services contract.

1.5 Who May Submit: The procurement is a small business set aside.

1.6 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code and Small Business Size Standard: The NAICS code for this project is 541611 with a size standard of $21,500,000.

2. 0 WHERE TO SUBMIT & SUBMITTAL DEADLINE

2.1 Offerors shall submit their proposals no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1449 (SF 1449) of this solicitation to: Procurement Integrated

Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Solicitation Module.

3.0 SUBMISSION FORMAT AND NUMBER OF SUBMITTALS

3.1 Offerors are required to submit a proposal made up of a Past Performance Proposal, Technical Proposal, and a Price Proposal. All proposal materials shall be in binders with a table of contents and tabbed section dividers. The sections should parallel the submission requirements identified below. Volume I and II submitted material should be organized sequentially under tabs to facilitate evaluation. Volume II shall be placed in a separate sealed envelope as explained below. Materials not organized under the appropriate tabs, and in the sequence of subparagraphs under each tab, may easily be overlooked during evaluations thus possibly affecting the rating of the Offeror.

Proposal Requirements (Evalution Factors) Quantity to be Submitted

Past Performance & Technical

Proposal (Volume I)

Factor I- Perfromance Confidence Assessment

Original and two (2) copies

Price Proposal (Volume II)

Factor III – Price A. Proposal Data Sheet B. SF 1449 and knowledged amendments C. Section B Schedule of

Prices D. Section K (unless available at SAM)

Original Only

4.0 PROPOSAL INFORMATION

4.1 Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Performance Work Statement with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Proposal clarity and material organization in each volume are mandatory but special printing, binding, or use of color or graphics is not necessary. The information submitted by the Offeror for each of the listed areas will be evaluated independently from each other. Therefore, each of the separate areas must be complete, able to stand alone, and have no inferred or actual reference to any other areas of the proposal. No material shall be incorporated by reference.

Offerors are advised that conciseness and relevance of the proposal is important and unrelated information will not be evaluated. Proposals that provide only superficial coverage of the information required may not receive additional consideration and may be excluded from the competitive range. Additionally, should the proposal include any standard company terms and conditions that conflict with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the proposal may be determined to be “unacceptable” and thus ineligible for award. Offerors shall limit submissions to the data essential for evaluation so that a minimum of time and funds are spent in preparing the information. However, in order to be effectively and equitably evaluated, Offerors must include information that is sufficiently detailed to describe the Offeror’s ability to perform the work in a timely manner.

4.2 The Government shall not be liable for any cost incurred by the Offeror in submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation.

4.3 The criteria specified in this Request for Proposal (RFP) and the Performance Work Statement are binding contract criteria, and in cases of any conflict subsequent to award between RFP criteria, performance work statement and the contractor’s proposal, the RFP criteria and performance work statement shall govern unless there is a written agreement between the Contracting Officer and the contractor on the waiving of a specific requirement.

4.4 Clarification of Provisions of this RFP. Any explanation desired by an Offeror regarding the meaning or interpretation of the RFP and/or any contact between the Offeror and USACE concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to the Contract Officer via email at Dellaria.L.Martin@usace.army.mil or via courier at the following address:

USACE, Nashville Contracting Division Attn: Dellaria L. Martin (W912P5-23-R-0002) Room #A-405 (Mailroom) 801 Broadway Nashville, TN 37203

ANNUAL WORKLOAD DATA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers LRN-Nashville District Medical Surveillance Program Annual Work Load Estimate Eastern Kentucky Area

Services Estimated

Workload Per Year

Base Year Option Year 1

Option Year 2

Option Year 3

a. Comprehensive Medical Exam (Medical Surveillance/HAZMAT) 30 $ $ $ $

b. Reproductive Cancer Screening (Female) 0 $ $ $ $

c. Audiometry 30 $ $ $ $

d. B-Reading 10 $ $ $ $

e. Chest X-Ray P/A 10 $ $ $ $

f. Colorectal Cancer Screening 0 $ $ $ $

g. Electrocardiogram 3 $ $ $ $

h. Spirometry 15 $ $ $ $

i. Best Vision 30 $ $ $ $

j. Comprehensive Vision 30 $ $ $ $

k. Vital Signs, Height/Weight 30 $ $ $ $

l. Scheduling 30 $ $ $ $

m. Venipuncture 30 $ $ $ $

n. Physician – Occupational Medicine Consultant (per hour) 30 $ $ $ $

o. Record Review – Physician (per hour) 30 $ $ $ $

p. Medical Review Officer (per hour) 30 $ $ $ $

q. Audiology Review (per record) 30 $ $ $ $

r. Record Processing (per hour) 30 $ $ $ $

s. Missed Appointment Fees (per occurrence) 0 $ $ $ $

t. Blood Type & Rh 0 $ $ $ $

u. Cholinesterase RBC and Plasma 30 $ $ $ $

v. SMA 20 0 $ $ $ $

w. Lead – Industrial whole blood 0 $ $ $ $

x. PCBs 0 $ $ $ $

y. PSA 0 $ $ $ $

z. ZPP, Blood Protoporphyrins, zinc 0 $ $ $ $

aa. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Quant (B);

Dichloromethane, 1-1-1 Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Dichlorobenzene, Chloroform

0 $ $ $ $

bb. Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase

0 $ $ $ $

cc. Hepatitis B Surface Antibody (QL) 0 $ $ $ $

dd. Lyme’s Disease AB Screen 0 $ $ $ $

ee. Hepatitis A Vaccination #1 0 $ $ $ $

ff. Hepatitis A Vaccination #2 0 $ $ $ $

gg. Hepatitis B Vaccination #1 0 $ $ $ $

hh. Hepatitis B Vaccination #2 0 $ $ $ $

ii. Hepatitis B Vaccination #3 0 $ $ $ $

jj. Hepatitis A/B Combination #1 0 $ $ $ $

kk. Hepatitis A/B Combination #2 0 $ $ $ $

ll. Hepatitis A/B Combination #3 0 $ $ $ $

mm. Influenza…