Corrective Maintenance (CM) Services Only for the Medical Treatment Facilities of Moncrief Army Health Clinic, Fort Jackson, SC

This Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract will be under the acquisition of commercial items and services in accordance with FAR Part 12. The resulting FFP contract will be awarded primarily using the acquisition of commercial items/services procedures in FAR 12 and selected sections of FAR 15 and FAR 16. Award of the resultant FFP contract for the attached Performance Work Statement will be made to the offeror considered to be the best value to the Government utilizing the Trade-Off Process. The evaluation factors are shown below and include price. The technical/management and experience factors each are equal in importance and significantly more important than past performance. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, and will be considered to the extent to which the prices represent a fair market price, considering the use of price analysis techniques. Offers will be evaluated on how well they address the proposal submission instructions in light of the evaluation factors. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposal contains a deficiency in the final evaluation, per FAR 15.001. This procurement is subject to FAR 52.232-18, Availability of Funds. Offerors are advised that contractor employees working under government contracts providing support services to the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center will have limited and carefully controlled access to offeror or contractor bids and proposals submitted in response to solicitations. These persons will not be performing any evaluation or analysis of proposals. Instead, they will be permitted to use the proposal analysis or evaluations conducted by authorized government employees to support CEHNC contracting officials in the administrative side of contract formation or administration. Thus, for example, such contractor personnel will prepare and format Price Negotiation Objectives, Determinations of Technical and Price Analysis, and Price Negotiation Memoranda. Offerors are advised that employees of Shearer & Associates may have access to your proposal, as they support the government in administrative functions. To ensure confidentiality is maintained, the Contracting Officer will be requiring each contractor employee, and the company itself, to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Interested firms are required to submit a firm-fixed price (FFP) proposal, inclusive of all options, to provide Corrective Maintenance Management Services to the Moncrief Army Community Hospital, Fort Jackson, South Carolina as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and all other associated technical documentation. Your proposal shall be valid for the entire base performance period, and the Government reserves the right to award all or part of each option period. The Government is under no obligation to exercise any option. The Period of Performance is as follows: Base Performance Period - 21 SEP 2020 - 20 SEP 2021. *Optional Performance Period 1 - 21 SEP 2021 - 20 SEP 2022. *Optional Performance Period 2 - 21 SEP 2022 - 20 SEP 2023. *Optional Performance Period 3 - 21 SEP 2023 - 20 SEP 2024. *Optional Performance Period 4 - 21 SEP 2024 - 20 SEP 2025. * The decision to award all, part, or none of these services will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. The following clause is incorporated by reference into this solicitation and will be incorporated into the contract upon award: FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services The Corrective Maintenance (CM) line item amount is set by the Government and is estimated at $500,000.00 annually for the base period and option periods 1 thru 4. The contractor shall include the CM CLIN amount of $500,000.00 for the base period and option periods 1 thru 4 in their price proposal for evaluation purposes. Pricing for Corrective Maintenance will be done at the time of award; however, the Contractor is required to list all professional labor categories and administrative markups from the base contract that the Contractor anticipates using in administering the service orders on separate spreadsheet. Corrective Maintenance will be funded in accordance with DFARS Clause 252-232-7007, Limitation of Government's Obligation. Per DFARS 252.232-7007 (c) the Contractor will notify the Contracting Officer prior to the work reaching the point at which the total amount payable will approximate 85% of the total amount then allotted for contract performance stated under Corrective Maintenance CLIN. Points of Contact: Vincent Fails, Project Manager Email: vincent.b.fails@usace.army.mil Phone: (256) 895-7365 James L. Cook, On-Site POC Email: james.l.cook1.civ@mail.mil Phone: (803) 751-4335 Questions during Solicitation: - Questions regarding this solicitation are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at https://www.projnet.org. To submit questions, firms need to self-register in the system (if they are not already currently registered). Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via email. Offerors are requested to review the solicitation in its entirety and review the Bidder Inquiry System for existing questions prior to submission of a new inquiry. All questions shall be submitted no later than 1:00 PM Central Time, 5 days after RFP goes out. Questions received after that date will be considered but no guarantee exists than an answer will be made. Questions should be submitted to ProjNet: AT7SNU-7SH69T Questions should be submitted no later than FIVE DAYS AFTER RFP GOES OUT. Questions will only be accepted in writing. Responses to questions will be provided in writing. https://www.projnet.org Any questions that results in a change to the RFP/PWS will result in an amendment to the RFP. The decision whether to address questions submitted after the question closing date shall be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. The RFP will remain unchanged unless amended in writing through an amendment. It is the responsibility of each offeror to review all amendments, updates or changes to the current information. The Government reserves the right to extend the solicitation prior to the posted closing date for any reason. Please utilize the following format when submitting your proposal: Volume I Contract Documents Checklist of Items to Submit Vendor Validation Information Sheet Volume II Price Summary Excel Sheet Complete all entries on the excel sheet and attach required pricing details. Volume III Technical /Management Approach - SET#1 OFFERORS SHALL REMOVE ANY AND ALL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FROM THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL. RESPONSES SHALL BE DOCUMENTED ON THE PROVIDED RESPONSE FORM Complete all fields in the PDF. Failure to complete a field will be evaluated as non-responsive. Volume III Technical /Management Approach - SET#2 OFFERORS SHALL INCLUDE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CONSISTENT WITH TRADITIONAL PROPOSALS (NAMES, ADDRESSES, ETC.) Complete all fields on the PDF, except the - Offeror field. Failure to complete a field will be evaluated at non-responsive. Volume IV Experience Project Summaries A maximum of five (5) projects will be considered Basis for Award & Process of Evaluation The Government intends to award this contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal constitutes the most advantageous approach to meeting the services outlined in the Performance Work Statement. The resulting contract will be awarded primarily using FAR 12.203 Procedures for Solicitation, Evaluation, and Award. Utilizing FAR 12 will be done to - ensure that offers can be evaluated in an efficient and minimally burdensome fashion. The Contracting Offices may conduct comparative evaluation of offers when considering experience, past performance and the other technical factors as described below. This may result in an award being made to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror consistent with the evaluations. Upon receipt of proposals, the Contract Specialist will review offers to confirm contractor responsibility and determine responsiveness. The Source Selection Board will individually evaluate all responsible and responsive offers for technical quality and will score each factor as Exceptional, Very Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable. Narrative descriptions of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies supporting each rating will be provided by the Source Selection Board. During a consensus meeting, the proposals will be ranked and assigned a ranking from highest (the most exceptional) to the lowest (Unacceptable) as agreed to by the team. The following conditions shall be met in order to be eligible for award: Responsibility: The offeror must be responsible according to the standards in FAR Part 9.1. Responsiveness: Vendors must respond to all elements of the Pricing information in Volume II, the Technical/Management Approach in Volume III and IV, and comply with all submission instructions. The failure to respond to all questions may result in an evaluation of Non-Responsive and render the proposal rating of - Unacceptable for this Volume. Acceptability of Offers: The contractor's proposal must comply with requirements of law, regulation and all conditions set forth in the solicitation. The contractor's proposal must demonstrate a clear under- standing of the work requirements of the contract. The Government does not assume a duty to search for clarification data to cure problems or inconsistencies within a vendor's proposal. Failure to provide a realistic, reasonable and a complete proposal may reflect a lack of understanding of the requirements and may result in a determination that the vendor is technically unacceptable. Acceptability of Other Information: Other information submitted by the contractors must comply with the conditions set forth in the RFP. The Government reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether the other information complies with the conditions set forth in the RFP. The Evaluation Elements: (a) Technical / Management Approach (Volume III) (b) Experience (Volume IV) (c) Past Performance (d) Price (Volume II) Evaluation & Rating Methodology: The following evaluation factors will be used in determining the best value contractor: (A) Technical/Management Approach: An analysis of technical level of effort will be used as part of the evaluation of technical risk. The offeror shall follow the instructions in the Jackson Volume III - Eval Factors Technical attachment and provide the required information. The Technical Rating Method: The following is a list of Adjectival Ratings and their respective descriptions used in the Technical Rating Method: (a) Outstanding - Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. (b) Good - Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. (c) Acceptable - Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. (d) Marginal - Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. (e) Unacceptable - Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable. (B) Experience: Offerors shall submit project summaries that describe the offeror's experience in providing Corrective Maintenance Management Services, for the type of medical facilities, systems, and equipment identified in the PWS, at sites which are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity. Relevancy of projects will evaluated IAW the Experience Relevancy Rating Method below. The offer shall provide all required information in Jackson Volume IV - Eval Factors Experience. Experience Relevancy Rating Method The following is a list of adjectival ratings and their respective descriptions used in Past Experience Relevancy: (a) Very Relevant - Experience involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (b) Relevant - Experience involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (c) Somewhat Relevant - Experience involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (d) Not Relevant - Experience involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (C) Past Performance: The Government will evaluate past performance IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii)-Past Performance Evaluation, in terms of relevancy to the performance work statement, quality of previous work provided, and ability to successfully maintain project schedules, dedication to cost containment, customer satisfaction, and compliance with contract requirements. This information may be obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for contracts where the contractor has not yet completed the contract. Where a contractor has completed a contract, the Government will use the contractor's performance on any relevant previous contracts to evaluate past performance, in addition to any information the Government may choose to obtain from CPARS. The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from sources other than CPARS or earlier contract performance when evaluating past performance. The Government considers previous performance within the past 3 years of the date of the initial solicitation as recent. The Government considers previous performance that is similar in size, scope and complexity as relevant. The Past Performance Relevancy Rating provided below, illustrates how the relevancy of past performance will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings The following is a list of ratings and their respective definitions used in Past Performance Relevancy: (a) Very Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (b) Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (c) Somewhat Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. (d) Not Relevant - Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements and delivering high quality products and services as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. Further, the Government may base its judgment about the quality of an Offeror's past performance on (1) records of objective measurements and subjective ratings of specified performance attributes, if available, and (2) statements of opinion about the quality of specific aspects of an Offeror's performance, or about the quality of an Offeror's overall performance. The Past Performance Risk Rating illustrates how past performance risk will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be given a rating of Neutral. Past Performance Risk Ratings (a) Low - Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. (b) Moderate - Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. (c) High - Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating The Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating illustrates how the level of confidence in the Offeror's projected performance will be evaluated. In the case of an offeror without a record of past performance, the offeror may not be rated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) Neutral Confidence - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. (d) 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. (e) 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. (D) Price: The offeror is to provide a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposal for the base and optional periods of performance for the Operations and Maintenance Services and Optional Services identified in the PWS. The pricing proposal shall be submitted as a document separate from all other portions of the Offeror's narrative proposal. The offeror shall fill out the provided Price Summary tables in Jackson Volume II - Eval Factors Price with the requested information. In addition to the summary table, the detailed price proposal shall be provided. Refer to Jackson Volume II - Eval Factors Price attachment for more information on the required information for the detailed price proposal. The price factor will be evaluated for price realism and reasonableness. Price will not be rated. The Government reserves the right to perform rigorous tradeoff analysis of the highest technically rated higher priced proposal to analyze and determine whether the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost; however, FAR 13.106-2 allows for simpler procedures. On the cover page of the price proposal, the contractor shall state the total price for all services for the specified base performance period and all option periods. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. In accordance with the basic contract, the contractor is required to submit manpower reporting data on an annual basis as applicable to this task order. Any prices associated with this requirement should be separately identified in sufficient enough detail to substantiate any prices proposed for this requirement. Competitive Range: The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range. In an effort to limit, for purposes of efficiency, the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (10 U.S.C.2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.253b(d)). If the Contracting Officer decides that a vendor's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision shall be provided to the unsuccessful vendor with information as required by FAR 15.5-3. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing (FAR 15.505 and 15.506). Exchanges: Exchanges may be held at any time during the open period for questions. To maximize the Government's ability to obtain best value, based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to seek clarification in event that a proposal is unclear as to intent of any or all parts. The scope and extent of clarifications are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. The Government may make a final determination as to whether a vendor's proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the proposal as submitted. Accordingly, vendors are advised to submit proposals which are fully and clearly acceptable and without the need for additional information. The competitive range, if required, may be reduced for purposes of efficiency. Vendors may be restricted to a short turnaround (i.e., less than 24 hours) in responding to the Contracting Officer during any exchange/clarification period. Award without Discussions: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Mere restatement of the requirements, or, should the proposal contain statements from the Offeror that the proposal is compliant without containing a description of the approaches, techniques, solutions, and/or processes proposed to satisfy the technical requirements, will be grounds for the Government to assign a very low rating for those criteria, or if the proposal would be so non-compliant and vague as to require a major revision, it could be eliminated from the competition without further evaluation. Generally speaking, "generic" information may score lower than information "well-tailored" to the RFP requirements. Any proposal receiving an overall - Marginal or below rating shall not be considered for Award; however, the Government reserves the right to consider any proposal with a - Marginal rating if the Government receives limited competition. The following clauses are incorporated by reference into this solicitation and will be incorporated into the Task Order upon award: FAR 52.223-1, Biobased Product Certification FAR 52.237-3, Continuity of Services ** Pricing shall be submitted in accordance with the structure identified within the attached spreadsheet entitled - CLIN Structure. You are requested to submit your proposal no later than 4:00 PM Central Time, on 20 August 2020. Your proposal should be provided via email to omee-ct@usace.army.mil and natosha.v.matthews@usace.army.mil. If additional information is required, please contact the Contract Specialist by email at natosha.v.matthews@usace.army.mil or by phone at 256-895-1149. (24) Attachments: Experience Reporting Information Fort Jackson CLIN Structure Fort Jackson PWS, Dated 01 June 2020 TE 1.0 List of Facilities TE 2.0 RPIE Equipment and Risk Factor Summary TE 3.0 RPIE Detailed Listing TE 4.0 Government Points of Contact TE 5.0 EM 385-1-1 Variance TE 6.0 Required Submittals TE 7.0 Fort Jackson Map TE 8.0 DID OMEE 0001 Safety Health Plan TE 9.0 DID OMEE 0002 Quality Control Plan TE 10.0 DID OMEE 0004 Facility O&M Plan TE 11.0 DID OMEE 0006 Progress Reporting TE 12.0 DID OMEE 0007 Minor Work Plan TE 13.0 Fort Jackson Contractor Vetting Requirements TE 14.0 DoD Cyber Awareness Challenge Training SCA WD 2015-4430 (Rev 15) Dated 03 June 2020 DBA SC 20200028 Dated 03 January 2020 Jackson Volume II - Eval Factors Price Jackson Volume III - Eval Factors Technical Jackson Volume IV - Eval Factors Experience Vendor Validation Information Proposal Checklist