W91YTZ-22-R-0047 0001.pdf

W40M RHCO-ATLANTIC USAHCA

GORDON HEALTH CONTRACTING CELL

POC: TRINA K. WADLEY

43 CENTRAL HOSPITAL COURT, BLDG 332

FORT GORDON GA 30905-5650

0011753231

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

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

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

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

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is as follow s:

1. To respond to Offeror (Vendor) questions in response to solicitation W91YTZ-22-R-0047 Emergency Physician Services, Fort Benning, Georgia.

2. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 8

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 17-Nov-2022

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

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

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X W91YTZ22R0047

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Nov-2022

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer 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

18-Nov-2022

CODE

W40M RHCO-ATLANTIC USAHCA

NORTHERN REG CONTR OFC NRCO

6021 5TH ST BLDG 1467

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5580

W91YTZ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE W91YTZ

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91YTZ22R0047

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

52.212-2 ADDENDUM

Paragraph (a) is hereby replaced with the following:

(a) Award will be made using the Best-Value Tradeoff source selection process. The evaluation factors for the Emergency Physicians Services are Past Performance, Compensation Plan and Price. Past Performance is more important than Compensation Plan, and both are more important than price when combined. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Agency the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the solicitation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

Award will be made to the Offeror provided its Compensation Plan is acceptable, it has an acceptable past performance and the price is determined fair and reasonable and the Contracting Office has determine the offeror is responsible.

Award may be made without discussions with Offerors (except communications conducted for the purpose of minor clarification). Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a past performance and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. When discussions/negotiations occur, each participating Offeror shall be given an opportunity to revise their proposal to reflect any changes that may have resulted from the discussions/negotiations.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

(2) FACTOR 2 – COMPENSATION PLAN

(3) FACTOR 3 - PRICE

The Government evaluation process is as follows:

Step 1 – The Government will conduct a review to determine if each Offeror met the submission requirements as outlined in Instruction to Offeror’s 52.212-1 and Addendum to 52.212-1. If an Offeror’s proposal is found to be non-compliant no further review or consideration will be conducted on that proposal.

Step 2 – Once the Government has determined which proposals are compliant ONLY those proposals will continue with the evaluation process as outlined below.

Step 3 – Evaluation Process for Factors 1, 2 and 3

FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offerors recent, relevant, and quality past performance (PPI Sheets, PPQs and information obtained from other sources available to the Government). The resulting PCA rating is determined at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent, relevant and quality past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. A rating of at least Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral Confidence shall be obtained in order to be eligible for award. More relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A “Substantial Confidence” rating of past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Satisfactory Confidence" rating.

For Offerors who relied on a subcontractor/Small Business Teaming Arrangement’s past performance information, the Government shall ensure those Offerors meet the subcontractor/Small Business Teaming Arrangement requirements outlined in the solicitation.

Definitions

The following definitions will be utilized for the Performance Confidence Assessment determination:

(a) Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort shall be ongoing or shall have been performed within the past three (3) years from the closing date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment An assessment of the recent past performance information will be made to determine its relevancy. This information will be evaluated to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance:

Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(i.e., services included providing the same or larger sized full-service team, providing the same services, in the same environment as the solicited requirement.)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a slightly smaller sized full-service team, providing similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a smaller full service team, providing somewhat similar services in a similar environment as the solicited requirement.)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (i.e., services included providing a considerably smaller sized team that did not encompass full-service, or where the scope, magnitude and complexities are dissimilar to the solicited requirement.)

Confidence Ratings: The Government will use the following definitions/ratings when making an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA).

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

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 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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 2 – COMPENSATION PLAN

The proposed compensation plan for each specialty identified in this solicitation will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention and its consistency with a total plan for compensation that is sufficient to attract and retain quality Health Care Providers (HCPs) at a fair and reasonable rate at which we could reasonably expect a Contractor to be able to recruit and retain qualified individuals for this requirement. The Government will utilize a variety of sources to evaluate each Offeror’s Compensation Plan to determine an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating. In order to adequately manage the risk of nonperformance and high turnover the Government will evaluate Compensation Plan (base salary plus fringe) rates for the base year and option years to ensure the Compensation Plan is sufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates to support this requirement. A Compensation Plan for each of the specialties will be required and will be rated individually as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” and then an overall rating will be assigned for this factor.

Any offer that receives a rating of less than “acceptable” on any of the specialties compensation plan will be ineligible for award and will be rated “unacceptable” for the overall rating for this factor. The proposal will be removed from consideration and no further evaluation will be conducted. Any compensation plan that is incomplete, does not show the breakdown of fringe benefits, explanation if hiring independent contractors/subcontractors, or are not submitted with amounts as hourly (not annual) rates will be rated “unacceptable”.

ACCEPTABLE The proposed compensation is sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

UNACCEPTABLE

The proposed compensation to the HCP is not sufficient to attract and retain quality HCPs.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE:

Price Analysis will be conducted. Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. The proposed price will be evaluated on the bottom line price for the entire effort, inclusive of all options. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques are, but not limited to, comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and/or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Estimate. Price shall be determined fair and reasonable.

(c) Options. The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(d) Given that FAR 52.217-8 provides that the Government may exercise the Option to Extend Services at the rates specified in the contract (i.e., the rates in effect when the Extension of Services option is exercised), for purposes of evaluating the Option to Extend Services, the Contracting Officer will consider the prices submitted for each option year, since those are the binding prices should the Option to Extend be exercised.

(e) The award decision will be based on the best value offered to the Government and not solely on price and price related factors. In making the award decision, the Contracting Officer will consider the evaluated rating of all factors. Ratings below “Neutral Confidence” and/or “unacceptable” will not be eligible for award.

END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following items are applicable to this modification:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

1. Are there incumbents on this contract and if so are they currently working as 1099 or W2 employees?

GHCB Response: A solicitation was posted to SAM.gov as a follow-on replacement to a previous contract.

2. Who is the incumbent contractor for this opportunity or is this a new requirement?

GHCB Response: Information regarding the current Contractor is not provided to Offerors.

3. What is the total current spend for this contract?

GHCB Response: Information regarding the current cost is not provided to the Offerors.

4. May we have both a title page and a summary page with the following criteria (title page limit 1), (summary page limit 2) pages.

GHCB Response: Please adhere to the instructions outlined in the solicitation.

5. We are a Joint Venture and are listed separately in SAM however we are not designated as a JV with the individual partners listed as the immediate owners, can we just provide you with our JV agreement?

GHCB Response: Please adhere to the instructions outlined in the solicitation.

6. We are assuming by your statement that the SF 1449 (page 1 only) means you do not need a Schedule of Continuation to be included, correct?

GHCB Response: Please adhere to the instructions outlined in the solicitation.

7. Under Past Performance you state, "The evidence shall include the names of three organizations or Government agencies that the Offeror has supported for at least three or more years specifically providing Emergency Physician Services. Performance shall have been by the Offeror (not by a subsidiary or sister company) either as the prime contractor or subcontractor."

May we use the past performance of our JV Partner as a PRIME source of past performance?

GHCB Response: Yes.

8. Please define the difference between a teaming partner and a subcontractor.

GHCB: The word Teaming partner is revised for clarity to “Small Business Teaming Arrangement” in accordance with FAR, Part 2 Definition of Words and Terms.

Small business subcontractor means a concern that does not exceed the size standard for the North American Industry Classification Systems code that the prime contractor determines best describes the product or service being acquired by the subcontract.

Small Business Teaming Arrangement—

(1) Means an arrangement where–

(i) Two or more small business concerns have formed a joint venture; or

(ii) A small business Offeror agrees with one or more other small business concerns to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract. A Small Business Teaming Arrangement between the Offeror and its small business subcontractor(s) exists through a written agreement between the parties that–

(A) Is specifically referred to as a "Small Business Teaming Arrangement"; and

(B) Sets forth the different responsibilities, roles, and percentages (or other allocations) of work as it relates to the acquisition;

9. Under the Pricing volume it states "submit the Tax ID#, Would you like to see the tax id # on the price sheet next to the Contractor Name or on the Title page?

GHCB Response: Please place TAX ID# under the Volume IV Price next to the Offeror’s name.

10. In addition to the price sheet in Vol IV, you want us to fill in Block 26 of the 1449 with the grand total, correct?

GHCB Response: Yes.

11. Do you want the compensation plan narrative to be included in the Excel document provided or in a separate file for this document?

GHCB Response: The Excel document provided and submitted as a separate document.

12. Section 52.212-1 states that the past performance questionnaires are due back to the Government by “the proposal due date.” However, the due date listed on the PPQ itself in Attachment 8 states that the form is due by 30 November. Can the Government please confirm the due date for PPQs?

GHCB Response: Correction: Past Performance questionaires are due back by the closing date and time (EST) stated on the SF 1449 of the solicitation.