AFICA-AFMOA/SGHQ-Air Force Centralized Credentialing Verification Office (AFCCVO)

Added: Aug 10, 2016 12:47 pm Modified: Aug 10, 2016 5:22 pmTrack Changes
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) number is FA8052-16-R-0029, Title is AFICA-AFMOA/SGHQ-Air Force Centralized Credentialing Verification Office (AFCCVO) and is supplemented with additional information included in Request for Proposal FA8052-16-R-0029 and Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 22 July 2016. Provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85 are incorporated.

This requirement is 100% set-aside for Small Business under NAICS 561611, with a Size Standard of $20.5 Million (FAR 19.502-2(a)).

All qualified businesses under this industry are encouraged to submit proposals. Qualified businesses must meet the Federal government's definition of a "small business". The Department of the Air Force, Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), 773rd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (773 ESS/PK) has a requirement for the Air Force Centralized Credentials Verification Office (AFCCVO) per the requirements described in the attached PWS dated 22 July 2016 (Attachment 1).

The mission of the AFCCVO is to provide a turn-key operation for credentialing support to the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) by gathering required credentials, performing Primary Source Verification (PSV) of applicable credentials, conducting databank queries, and entering all data into the Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS). The AFCCVO will also provide required data for future credentialing and privileging decisions to appropriate customers within the AFMS, Air Force Recruiting Services (AFRS), Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG) recruiters and units. This would include establishing and manage a centralized Credentials Verification Office (CVO) in San Antonio, TX for the Clinical Quality Management Division, Air Force Medical Operations Agency (AFMOA/SGHQ). The staff positions for this requirement are as follows:

Senior Credentialing Specialists
Credentialing Specialists
Administrative Assistants

NOTE: The existing contract, AFMS Consultant, Advisory and Technical Services (CATS) FA8053-12-D-0001-0002 expires 24 September 2016 and was awarded to Decypher Technologies, LTD.

The Period of Performance for this requirement is 12-months (base period) plus four (4) year option periods Proposal shall be submitted via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified herein (Mark Ingle, mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg, trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil, The Proposals shall be submitted not later than NLT 11:00 AM (CST) on Wednesday, 31 August 2016. The Government anticipates awarding a single contract on or about 20 September 2016.

Should there be a conflict between this synopsis and the PWS, the PWS will take precedence. All numbers are estimates.
The evaluation methodology will be Technically Acceptable with Performance and Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. It is the Government's intents to award a single contract to the Offeror who overall provides the best value offer to the Air Force as determined by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria establish in section L & M of this RFP, and in the addendum to provision FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation of Commercial Items. Technical acceptability will be evaluated and given ratings of acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable offers will not be eligible for award. Past Performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than Price.
The resulting award will be made on SF 1449, for commercial services. The proposed contract action is for services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one of two sources under the authority of FAR 6.302. Interested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement or submit proposals. However, this notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals from any other sources.

The contract will be FFP with a 12 month base period and four (4) - one year option, if all options are exercised. Clauses and provisions throughout this solicitation can be viewed by accessing website http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm and https://www.acquisition.gov/. FAR provision 52.212-1 [Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items] applies to this acquisition to include the following addenda: All Offerors are cautioned that if selected for award, they must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) program. The SAM can be accessed via the internet at www.sam.gov/. Confirmation of SAM registration will be validated prior to awarding a contract.

The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical /Risk Capability
Factor 2: Past Performance
Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL /RISK CAPABILITY. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated that the Offeror's technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of AFCCVO requirement, as defined within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS.
A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements attached hereto. The technical evaluation criteria factors accessing technical acceptability can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.
Technical Factor Ratings. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award. (See Table 1):

                     Table 1. Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings
Rating                                Description

Acceptable        The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the    
                        solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, 
                        either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for
                        award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable      Fails to meet one or more requirements in the solicitation identified   
                         and major revisions would be required to make the proposal
                         acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be 
                         considered for award.

(b) FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (No page limit). The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on recency and relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following ratings (see Table 2 below):

                          Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments
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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence          No recent/relevant performance record is available or the  
(Neutral)                           Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no  
                                        meaningful confidence assessment rating can be
                                        reasonably assigned.

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. Therefore, the proposal selected for award will provide the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement. This decision will be based upon the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation, the terms and conditions agreed upon during discussions (if conducted) and the capability (i.e., Technical, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Cost/Price) to fulfill the subject requirement. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Offeror's with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. To be eligible for the comparison assessment of Past Performance and Price, Offeror's must have received an acceptable technical rating, i.e. all requirements of the technical factor had to be met for an Offeror's technical proposal to be determined acceptable. Offeror's technical proposals were assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance was not be evaluated for Offeror's rated as technically unacceptable, i.e. not awardable.

(c) FACTOR 3 - PRICE. Price will be scored or rated, based on the ranking from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph this section. TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. These pricing techniques are necessary to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The pricing evaluation criteria factors can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.

Past Performance as well as pricing will not be considered for any offer unless the proposal has a technical rating of "acceptable" or "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable" for every technical sub-factor.

PROVISIONS/CLAUSES: The provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation and the Offeror must include a completed copy of this provision with their proposal. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this Solicitation. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Status or Executive Orders, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services may apply, and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Terms of the Contract will apply if terms of this contract are extended.

Addendum 1 to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Jun 2008): Submission of Offers.

(a) General Instructions:
(i) Interested parties capable of providing the specified services must submit a written offer via email to: Mark Ingle - mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg - trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil.
(ii) Do not send as an executable or .exe file. Email size shall not exceed five megabytes. Documents may be compressed (zipped) using WinZip 8.1 or later
version. Any corrupted file or media containing a virus could result in the offer not being considered for award.
(iii) Software Compatibility. Use a word processing and spreadsheet program compatible with Microsoft ® Word 2010 ® and Microsoft ® Excel 2010 ®. PDF is Adobe ® Portable Document Format.
(iv) Solicitation Questions. Any questions relating to the solicitation shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer (CO) noted in
paragraph (i) above by 2:00 PM on 19 August 2016. Any questions received after this time/date may or may not be answered due to time constraints of the solicitation.
(v)See Section L of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029 for additional General Instructions Information.

The following documents are attached:
Solicitation RFP FA8052-16-R-0029
     Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement dated 22 July 2016
     Attachment 2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan dated 20 July 2016
     Attachment 3 Past Performance History
     Attachment 4 Sample Client Authorization Letter
     Attachment 5 Past Performance Information Evaluation
     Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire
     Attachment 7 Wage Determinations Rev .17 (WD 05-2521) dated 29 December 2015

Contracting Office Address:
Attn: Mark Ingle, Contract Specialist
773 ESS/PKB - Port San Antonio
3515 S. General McMullen
San Antonio, TX 78226
PH: 210-395-9549
FAX: 210-395-9864
E-mail: mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil

Added: Aug 10, 2016 12:47 pm Modified: Aug 10, 2016 2:25 pmTrack Changes
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) number is FA8052-16-R-0029, Title is AFICA-AFMOA/SGHQ-Air Force Centralized Credentialing Verification Office (AFCCVO) and is supplemented with additional information included in Request for Proposal FA8052-16-R-0029 and Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 22 July 2016. Provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85 are incorporated.

This requirement is 100% set-aside for Small Business under NAICS 561611, with a Size Standard of $20.5 Million (FAR 19.502-2(a)).

All qualified businesses under this industry are encouraged to submit proposals. Qualified businesses must meet the Federal government's definition of a "small business". The Department of the Air Force, Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), 773rd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (773 ESS/PK) has a requirement for the Air Force Centralized Credentials Verification Office (AFCCVO) per the requirements described in the attached PWS dated 22 July 2016 (Attachment 1).

The mission of the AFCCVO is to provide a turn-key operation for credentialing support to the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) by gathering required credentials, performing Primary Source Verification (PSV) of applicable credentials, conducting databank queries, and entering all data into the Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS). The AFCCVO will also provide required data for future credentialing and privileging decisions to appropriate customers within the AFMS, Air Force Recruiting Services (AFRS), Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG) recruiters and units. This would include establishing and manage a centralized Credentials Verification Office (CVO) in San Antonio, TX for the Clinical Quality Management Division, Air Force Medical Operations Agency (AFMOA/SGHQ). The staff positions for this requirement are as follows:

Senior Credentialing Specialists
Credentialing Specialists
Administrative Assistants

NOTE: The existing contract, AFMS Consultant, Advisory and Technical Services (CATS) FA8053-12-D-0001 expires 24 September 2016 and was awarded to Decypher Technologies, LTD.

The Period of Performance for this requirement is 12-months (base period) plus four (4) year option periods Proposal shall be submitted via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified herein (Mark Ingle, mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg, trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil, The Proposals shall be submitted not later than NLT 11:00 AM (CST) on Wednesday, 31 August 2016. The Government anticipates awarding a single contract on or about 20 September 2016.

Should there be a conflict between this synopsis and the PWS, the PWS will take precedence. All numbers are estimates.
The evaluation methodology will be Technically Acceptable with Performance and Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. It is the Government's intents to award a single contract to the Offeror who overall provides the best value offer to the Air Force as determined by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria establish in section L & M of this RFP, and in the addendum to provision FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation of Commercial Items. Technical acceptability will be evaluated and given ratings of acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable offers will not be eligible for award. Past Performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than Price.
The resulting award will be made on SF 1449, for commercial services. The proposed contract action is for services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one of two sources under the authority of FAR 6.302. Interested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement or submit proposals. However, this notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals from any other sources.

The contract will be FFP with a 12 month base period and four (4) - one year option, if all options are exercised. Clauses and provisions throughout this solicitation can be viewed by accessing website http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm and https://www.acquisition.gov/. FAR provision 52.212-1 [Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items] applies to this acquisition to include the following addenda: All Offerors are cautioned that if selected for award, they must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) program. The SAM can be accessed via the internet at www.sam.gov/. Confirmation of SAM registration will be validated prior to awarding a contract.

The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical /Risk Capability
Factor 2: Past Performance
Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL /RISK CAPABILITY. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated that the Offeror's technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of AFCCVO requirement, as defined within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS.
A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements attached hereto. The technical evaluation criteria factors accessing technical acceptability can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.
Technical Factor Ratings. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award. (See Table 1):

                     Table 1. Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings
Rating                                Description

Acceptable        The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the    
                        solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, 
                        either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for
                        award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable      Fails to meet one or more requirements in the solicitation identified   
                         and major revisions would be required to make the proposal
                         acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be 
                         considered for award.

(b) FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (No page limit). The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on recency and relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following ratings (see Table 2 below):

                          Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments
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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence          No recent/relevant performance record is available or the  
(Neutral)                           Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no  
                                        meaningful confidence assessment rating can be
                                        reasonably assigned.

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. Therefore, the proposal selected for award will provide the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement. This decision will be based upon the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation, the terms and conditions agreed upon during discussions (if conducted) and the capability (i.e., Technical, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Cost/Price) to fulfill the subject requirement. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Offeror's with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. To be eligible for the comparison assessment of Past Performance and Price, Offeror's must have received an acceptable technical rating, i.e. all requirements of the technical factor had to be met for an Offeror's technical proposal to be determined acceptable. Offeror's technical proposals were assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance was not be evaluated for Offeror's rated as technically unacceptable, i.e. not awardable.

(c) FACTOR 3 - PRICE. Price will be scored or rated, based on the ranking from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph this section. TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. These pricing techniques are necessary to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The pricing evaluation criteria factors can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.

Past Performance as well as pricing will not be considered for any offer unless the proposal has a technical rating of "acceptable" or "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable" for every technical sub-factor.

PROVISIONS/CLAUSES: The provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation and the Offeror must include a completed copy of this provision with their proposal. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this Solicitation. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Status or Executive Orders, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services may apply, and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Terms of the Contract will apply if terms of this contract are extended.

Addendum 1 to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Jun 2008): Submission of Offers.

(a) General Instructions:
(i) Interested parties capable of providing the specified services must submit a written offer via email to: Mark Ingle - mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg - trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil.
(ii) Do not send as an executable or .exe file. Email size shall not exceed five megabytes. Documents may be compressed (zipped) using WinZip 8.1 or later
version. Any corrupted file or media containing a virus could result in the offer not being considered for award.
(iii) Software Compatibility. Use a word processing and spreadsheet program compatible with Microsoft ® Word 2010 ® and Microsoft ® Excel 2010 ®. PDF is Adobe ® Portable Document Format.
(iv) Solicitation Questions. Any questions relating to the solicitation shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer (CO) noted in
paragraph (i) above by 2:00 PM on 19 August 2016. Any questions received after this time/date may or may not be answered due to time constraints of the solicitation.
(v)See Section L of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029 for additional General Instructions Information.

The following documents are attached:
Solicitation RFP FA8052-16-R-0029
     Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement dated 22 July 2016
     Attachment 2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan dated 20 July 2016
     Attachment 3 Past Performance History
     Attachment 4 Sample Client Authorization Letter
     Attachment 5 Past Performance Information Evaluation
     Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire
     Attachment 7 Wage Determinations Rev .17 (WD 05-2521) dated 29 December 2015

Contracting Office Address:
Attn: Mark Ingle, Contract Specialist
773 ESS/PKB - Port San Antonio
3515 S. General McMullen
San Antonio, TX 78226
PH: 210-395-9549
FAX: 210-395-9864
E-mail: mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil

Added: Aug 10, 2016 12:47 pm Modified: Aug 10, 2016 1:57 pmTrack Changes
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) number is FA8052-16-R-0029, Title is AFICA-AFMOA/SGHQ-Air Force Centralized Credentialing Verification Office (AFCCVO) and is supplemented with additional information included in Request for Proposal FA8052-16-R-0029 and Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 22 July 2016. Provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85 are incorporated.

This requirement is 100% set-aside for Small Business under NAICS 561611, with a Size Standard of $20.5 Million (FAR 19.502-2(a)).

All qualified businesses under this industry are encouraged to submit proposals. Qualified businesses must meet the Federal government's definition of a "small business". The Department of the Air Force, Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), 773rd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (773 ESS/PK) has a requirement for the Air Force Centralized Credentials Verification Office (AFCCVO) per the requirements described in the attached PWS dated 22 July 2016 (Attachment 2).

The mission of the AFCCVO is to provide a turn-key operation for credentialing support to the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) by gathering required credentials, performing Primary Source Verification (PSV) of applicable credentials, conducting databank queries, and entering all data into the Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS). The AFCCVO will also provide required data for future credentialing and privileging decisions to appropriate customers within the AFMS, Air Force Recruiting Services (AFRS), Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG) recruiters and units. This would include establishing and manage a centralized Credentials Verification Office (CVO) in San Antonio, TX for the Clinical Quality Management Division, Air Force Medical Operations Agency (AFMOA/SGHQ). The staff positions for this requirement are as follows:

Senior Credentialing Specialists
Credentialing Specialists
Administrative Assistants

NOTE: The existing contract, AFMS Consultant, Advisory and Technical Services (CATS) FA8053-12-D-0001 expires 24 September 2016 and was awarded to Decypher Technologies, LTD.

The Period of Performance for this requirement is 12-months (base period) plus four (4) year option periods Proposal shall be submitted via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified herein (Mark Ingle, mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg, trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil, The Proposals shall be submitted not later than NLT 11:00 AM (CST) on Wednesday, 31 August 2016. The Government anticipates awarding a single contract on or about 20 September 2016.

Should there be a conflict between this synopsis and the PWS, the PWS will take precedence. All numbers are estimates.
The evaluation methodology will be Technically Acceptable with Performance and Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. It is the Government's intents to award a single contract to the Offeror who overall provides the best value offer to the Air Force as determined by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria establish in section L & M of this RFP, and in the addendum to provision FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation of Commercial Items. Technical acceptability will be evaluated and given ratings of acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable offers will not be eligible for award. Past Performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than Price.
The resulting award will be made on SF 1449, for commercial services. The proposed contract action is for services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one of two sources under the authority of FAR 6.302. Interested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement or submit proposals. However, this notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals from any other sources.

The contract will be FFP with a 12 month base period and four (4) - one year option, if all options are exercised. Clauses and provisions throughout this solicitation can be viewed by accessing website http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm and https://www.acquisition.gov/. FAR provision 52.212-1 [Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items] applies to this acquisition to include the following addenda: All Offerors are cautioned that if selected for award, they must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) program. The SAM can be accessed via the internet at www.sam.gov/. Confirmation of SAM registration will be validated prior to awarding a contract.

The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical /Risk Capability
Factor 2: Past Performance
Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL /RISK CAPABILITY. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated that the Offeror's technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of AFCCVO requirement, as defined within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS.
A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements attached hereto. The technical evaluation criteria factors accessing technical acceptability can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.
Technical Factor Ratings. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award. (See Table 1):

                     Table 1. Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings
Rating                                Description

Acceptable        The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the    
                        solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, 
                        either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for
                        award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable      Fails to meet one or more requirements in the solicitation identified   
                         and major revisions would be required to make the proposal
                         acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be 
                         considered for award.

(b) FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (No page limit). The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on recency and relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following ratings (see Table 2 below):

                          Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments
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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence          No recent/relevant performance record is available or the  
(Neutral)                           Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no  
                                        meaningful confidence assessment rating can be
                                        reasonably assigned.

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. Therefore, the proposal selected for award will provide the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement. This decision will be based upon the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation, the terms and conditions agreed upon during discussions (if conducted) and the capability (i.e., Technical, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Cost/Price) to fulfill the subject requirement. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Offeror's with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. To be eligible for the comparison assessment of Past Performance and Price, Offeror's must have received an acceptable technical rating, i.e. all requirements of the technical factor had to be met for an Offeror's technical proposal to be determined acceptable. Offeror's technical proposals were assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance was not be evaluated for Offeror's rated as technically unacceptable, i.e. not awardable.

(c) FACTOR 3 - PRICE. Price will be scored or rated, based on the ranking from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph this section. TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. These pricing techniques are necessary to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The pricing evaluation criteria factors can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.

Past Performance as well as pricing will not be considered for any offer unless the proposal has a technical rating of "acceptable" or "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable" for every technical sub-factor.

PROVISIONS/CLAUSES: The provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation and the Offeror must include a completed copy of this provision with their proposal. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this Solicitation. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Status or Executive Orders, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services may apply, and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Terms of the Contract will apply if terms of this contract are extended.

Addendum 1 to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Jun 2008): Submission of Offers.

(a) General Instructions:
(i) Interested parties capable of providing the specified services must submit a written offer via email to: Mark Ingle - mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg - trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil.
(ii) Do not send as an executable or .exe file. Email size shall not exceed five megabytes. Documents may be compressed (zipped) using WinZip 8.1 or later
version. Any corrupted file or media containing a virus could result in the offer not being considered for award.
(iii) Software Compatibility. Use a word processing and spreadsheet program compatible with Microsoft ® Word 2010 ® and Microsoft ® Excel 2010 ®. PDF is Adobe ® Portable Document Format.
(iv) Solicitation Questions. Any questions relating to the solicitation shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer (CO) noted in
paragraph (i) above by 2:00 PM on 19 August 2016. Any questions received after this time/date may or may not be answered due to time constraints of the solicitation.
(v)See Section L of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029 for additional General Instructions Information.

The following documents are attached:
Solicitation RFP FA8052-16-R-0029
     Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement dated 22 July 2016
     Attachment 2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan dated 20 July 2016
     Attachment 3 Past Performance History
     Attachment 4 Sample Client Authorization Letter
     Attachment 5 Past Performance Information Evaluation
     Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire
     Attachment 7 Wage Determinations Rev .17 (WD 05-2521) dated 29 December 2015

Contracting Office Address:
Attn: Mark Ingle, Contract Specialist
773 ESS/PKB - Port San Antonio
3515 S. General McMullen
San Antonio, TX 78226
PH: 210-395-9549
FAX: 210-395-9864
E-mail: mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil

Added: Aug 10, 2016 12:47 pm
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) number is FA8052-16-R-0029, Title is AFICA-AFMOA/SGHQ-Air Force Centralized Credentialing Verification Office (AFCCVO) and is supplemented with additional information included in Attachment 1 - Request for Proposal FA8052-16-R-0029 and Attachment 2 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 22 July 2016. Provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-85 are incorporated.

This requirement is 100% set-aside for Small Business under NAICS 561611, with a Size Standard of $20.5 Million (FAR 19.502-2(a)).

All qualified businesses under this industry are encouraged to submit proposals. Qualified businesses must meet the Federal government's definition of a "small business". The Department of the Air Force, Air Force Installation Contracting Agency (AFICA), 773rd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (773 ESS/PK) has a requirement for the Air Force Centralized Credentials Verification Office (AFCCVO) per the requirements described in the attached PWS dated 22 July 2016 (Attachment 2).

The mission of the AFCCVO is to provide a turn-key operation for credentialing support to the Air Force Medical Service (AFMS) by gathering required credentials, performing Primary Source Verification (PSV) of applicable credentials, conducting databank queries, and entering all data into the Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS). The AFCCVO will also provide required data for future credentialing and privileging decisions to appropriate customers within the AFMS, Air Force Recruiting Services (AFRS), Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC), Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) and Air National Guard (ANG) recruiters and units. This would include establishing and manage a centralized Credentials Verification Office (CVO) in San Antonio, TX for the Clinical Quality Management Division, Air Force Medical Operations Agency (AFMOA/SGHQ). The staff positions for this requirement are as follows:

Senior Credentialing Specialists
Credentialing Specialists
Administrative Assistants

NOTE: The existing contract, AFMS Consultant, Advisory and Technical Services (CATS) FA8053-12-D-0001 expires 24 September 2016 and was awarded to Decypher Technologies, LTD.

The Period of Performance for this requirement is 12-months (base period) plus four (4) year option periods Proposal shall be submitted via e-mail to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist identified herein (Mark Ingle, mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg, trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil, The Proposals shall be submitted not later than NLT 11:00 AM (CST) on Wednesday, 31 August 2016. The Government anticipates awarding a single contract on or about 20 September 2016.

Should there be a conflict between this synopsis and the PWS, the PWS will take precedence. All numbers are estimates.
The evaluation methodology will be Technically Acceptable with Performance and Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. It is the Government's intents to award a single contract to the Offeror who overall provides the best value offer to the Air Force as determined by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria establish in section L & M of this RFP, and in the addendum to provision FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation of Commercial Items. Technical acceptability will be evaluated and given ratings of acceptable or unacceptable. Unacceptable offers will not be eligible for award. Past Performance will be evaluated as significantly more important than Price.
The resulting award will be made on SF 1449, for commercial services. The proposed contract action is for services for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one of two sources under the authority of FAR 6.302. Interested persons may identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement or submit proposals. However, this notice of intent is not a request for competitive proposals from any other sources.

The contract will be FFP with a 12 month base period and four (4) - one year option, if all options are exercised. Clauses and provisions throughout this solicitation can be viewed by accessing website http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm and https://www.acquisition.gov/. FAR provision 52.212-1 [Instructions to Offerors Commercial Items] applies to this acquisition to include the following addenda: All Offerors are cautioned that if selected for award, they must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) program. The SAM can be accessed via the internet at www.sam.gov/. Confirmation of SAM registration will be validated prior to awarding a contract.

The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three (3) evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Technical /Risk Capability
Factor 2: Past Performance
Factor 3: Price

FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL /RISK CAPABILITY. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror's proposed approach to satisfy the Government's minimum requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated that the Offeror's technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of AFCCVO requirement, as defined within the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Proposals should display a clear understanding and reasonable, well-thought-out approach, that demonstrates the Offeror's understanding of all tasks to be performed, as well as, the technical approach and methodology for accomplishing all tasks under any resultant award to meet the requirements of the PWS.
A technically acceptable proposal shall have a sound technical approach that meets the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements attached hereto. The technical evaluation criteria factors accessing technical acceptability can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.
Technical Factor Ratings. The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as technically unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of unacceptable and will not be eligible for award. (See Table 1):

                     Table 1. Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings
Rating                                Description

Acceptable        The proposal meets all the requirements identified in the    
                        solicitation. Only those proposals determined acceptable, 
                        either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for
                        award. Once deemed acceptable, all proposals are considered equal.

Unacceptable      Fails to meet one or more requirements in the solicitation identified   
                         and major revisions would be required to make the proposal
                         acceptable. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be 
                         considered for award.

(b) FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE (No page limit). The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on recency and relevancy. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following ratings (see Table 2 below):

                          Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments
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.

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

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

Unknown Confidence          No recent/relevant performance record is available or the  
(Neutral)                           Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no  
                                        meaningful confidence assessment rating can be
                                        reasonably assigned.

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) procedures. Therefore, the proposal selected for award will provide the best overall value to satisfy the Air Force requirement. This decision will be based upon the criteria established in Section M of this solicitation, the terms and conditions agreed upon during discussions (if conducted) and the capability (i.e., Technical, Past Performance Confidence Assessment, and Cost/Price) to fulfill the subject requirement. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. Offeror's with no relevant past or present performance history or the Offeror's performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence", meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. To be eligible for the comparison assessment of Past Performance and Price, Offeror's must have received an acceptable technical rating, i.e. all requirements of the technical factor had to be met for an Offeror's technical proposal to be determined acceptable. Offeror's technical proposals were assigned an adjectival rating of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance was not be evaluated for Offeror's rated as technically unacceptable, i.e. not awardable.

(c) FACTOR 3 - PRICE. Price will be scored or rated, based on the ranking from lowest to highest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria in paragraph this section. TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. These pricing techniques are necessary to determine if the price is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. Through these techniques, the Government will determine whether the proposed prices are complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The pricing evaluation criteria factors can be found in Section M of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029.

Past Performance as well as pricing will not be considered for any offer unless the proposal has a technical rating of "acceptable" or "reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable" for every technical sub-factor.

PROVISIONS/CLAUSES: The provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation and the Offeror must include a completed copy of this provision with their proposal. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this Solicitation. The clause at FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Status or Executive Orders, Commercial Items, applies to this solicitation. FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services may apply, and FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Terms of the Contract will apply if terms of this contract are extended.

Addendum 1 to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Jun 2008): Submission of Offers.

(a) General Instructions:
(i) Interested parties capable of providing the specified services must submit a written offer via email to: Mark Ingle - mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil and Trichelle Mayfield-Flagg - trichelle.mayfield-flagg@us.af.mil.
(ii) Do not send as an executable or .exe file. Email size shall not exceed five megabytes. Documents may be compressed (zipped) using WinZip 8.1 or later
version. Any corrupted file or media containing a virus could result in the offer not being considered for award.
(iii) Software Compatibility. Use a word processing and spreadsheet program compatible with Microsoft ® Word 2010 ® and Microsoft ® Excel 2010 ®. PDF is Adobe ® Portable Document Format.
(iv) Solicitation Questions. Any questions relating to the solicitation shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer (CO) noted in
paragraph (i) above by 2:00 PM on 19 August 2016. Any questions received after this time/date may or may not be answered due to time constraints of the solicitation.
(v)See Section L of RFP FA8052-16-R-0029 for additional General Instructions Information.

The following documents are attached:
Solicitation RFP FA8052-16-R-0029
     Attachment 1 Performance Work Statement dated 22 July 2016
     Attachment 2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan dated 20 July 2016
     Attachment 3 Past Performance History
     Attachment 4 Sample Client Authorization Letter
     Attachment 5 Past Performance Information Evaluation
     Attachment 6 Past Performance Questionnaire
     Attachment 7 Wage Determinations Rev .17 (WD 05-2521) dated 29 December 2015

Contracting Office Address:
Attn: Mark Ingle, Contract Specialist
773 ESS/PKB - Port San Antonio
3515 S. General McMullen
San Antonio, TX 78226
PH: 210-395-9549
FAX: 210-395-9864
E-mail: mark.ingle.2@us.af.mil