V--BLS/ALS Ambulance Services for Birmingham VAMC

The purpose of this amendment to RFP #VA247-17-R-0072, BLS/ALS Ambulance Services for Birmingham VAMC is to replace the current Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award with the below. All other solicitation provisions remain unchanged. This amendment does not constitute an extension to the RFP closing date/time. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD A single award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal meets the Government s requirements and whose technical proposal and price represent the best value for the Government. The evaluation of Request for Proposal using best value with the following order of importance for each evaluation factor (listed in descending order of importance): Technical Management/Key Personnel Past Performance Price EVALUATION FACTORS TECHNICAL CAPABILITY - Describe in detail the technical qualifications of your company: Provide a written technical proposal demonstrating they are capable and experienced in meeting or exceeding all requirements listed in the Statement of Work. Proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) for technical acceptability. Provide a detailed description of the qualification, licenses, type and frequency of training and experience of the personnel that will be employed to provide the required services in accordance with the statement of work. Provide a list of the vehicles that will be used in the performance of this requirement that meet the requirements. The list shall include the make, model, year and Vehicle Identification Number. Provide a copy of the Fleet Maintenance Plan and a copy of the last vehicle inspection. Provide a detailed description of the communication equipment, process used to communicate between the Contractor and the Birmingham VA Medical Center. This description should include communication equipment failure procedures as well. Be able to perform an average of 12 ambulance transports per day MANAGEMENT APPROACH/KEY PERSONNEL- Provide in detail the following information related to managing the performance of this contract: Provide a copy of the company's contingency plan and quality control plan tailored toward meeting the requirements of the Statement of Work. Provide a copy of the company's Business Licenses and Certificate of Insurance for the state in which the offeror is proposing to provide services. Describe the company's key personnel that will manage this requirement and the management plan designed to meet contract performance standards. Provide the qualifications of other personnel to be involved in the ambulance operations. Specifically, provide details on training, education, and experience in ambulance operations. Describe in depth the knowledge and experience of proposed staff, and your plan for recruiting and retaining them. PAST PERFORMANCE - Past performance will be evaluated based on references provided by the offeror, and by information on corporate experience provided by the offeror. The Government also may consider any additional past performance information that is reasonably available. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete performance information rests with the offeror. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (See FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Provide three (3) references for companies or Government agencies you have supported for three (3) or more years. Offerors are required to provide Past Performance Questionnaire to references (Past Performance Questionnaire will be included in the RFP). The individual providing the reference shall forward the surveys directly to the contracting officer by email contact@example.gov, no later than the closing date of the solicitation. Include RFP VA247-17-R-0072 in the subject line. Past Performance Questionnaire WILL NOT be accepted directly from the offeror. It is the offeror s responsibility to ensure the references submit Past Performance Questionnaires for consideration. The Government will not accept Past Performance Questionnaire References that are not submitted by the closing date of the solicitation. The offeror must include a copy of each requested Past Performance Questionnaire with the proposal submission. Offerors shall ensure the accuracy of references provided. Providing incorrect references and phone numbers may render the proposal unsatisfactory. The Government will not be responsible for tracking incorrect references and phone numbers. PRICE: Price proposals will be evaluated only for those Offerors that receive a technical management evaluation rating of satisfactory or better. The Offeror submitting the offer determined to provide the best value to the Government will be awarded the contract. While the Government intends to award without discussions, the right to hold discussions is reserved. PROPOSAL EVALUATION RATING PLAN A. The purpose of the rating plan is to ensure that proposals are evaluated equitably and that the same criteria are applied to all proposals. Rating plans provide a logical basis for evaluating the proposals and establishes a common frame of reference for the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) to use during the evaluation process B. For evaluation of the Technical Capability and Management Approach/Key Personnel Criteria, the SSEB shall assign an adjectival rating for each evaluation factor. The ratings focus on strengths and inadequacies of the offerors proposals. Technical factors shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings: Technical and Management Evaluation Criteria: The ratings focus on the acceptability of the offeror s offer and will be assessed at the factor level. Technical and Management factors shall be evaluated using the following rating method: Technical and Management Evaluation Criteria (factors 1 and 2) Rating Definition Exceptional Capabilities exceed essentially all solicitation requirements and demonstrate an excellent understanding of the requirements. Capabilities have numerous strengths and virtually no weaknesses. Excellent probability of success with overall very low degree of risk in meeting Government s requirements. Very Good Capabilities meet all and exceed some solicitation requirements and demonstrate a good understanding of the requirements. Capabilities include some strengths and negligible weaknesses. Very good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government s requirements. Satisfactory Capabilities adequately meet all solicitation requirements and demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements. No real advantages are offered. Strengths are insignificant and weaknesses are minor. If there are any significant strengths, they are offset by significant weaknesses. Good probability of success with overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government s requirements. Marginal Capabilities meet some, but not all solicitation requirements. There is evidence of marginal understanding of the requirements. No advantages are offered. There are virtually no strengths and may be minor weaknesses are present. If there are any strengths, they are offset entirely by weaknesses. Probability of success is poor and the overall degree of risk in meeting the Government s requirements is moderate. Unacceptable Capabilities meet few, if any, solicitation requirements. There is evidence of inadequate understanding of the requirements. There are essentially no strengths and weaknesses are significant. Any strength is overwhelmingly offset by numerous or significant weaknesses. Probability of success is very poor and the overall degree of risk in meeting the Government s requirements is high. C. For evaluation of the Past Performance Criteria, the SSEB shall assign an adjectival rating for this evaluation factor. The ratings focus on strengths and inadequacies of the offerors Past Performance questionnaires. Past Performance shall be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings: 1. Past Performance Criteria: The ratings focus on the acceptability of the offeror s Past Performance surveys. Past Performance shall be evaluated using the following rating method: Past Performance Evaluation Criteria (factor 3) Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror s performance record essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror successfully completed projects of essentially the same size and scope in the past. Significant Confidence Based on the Offeror s performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror successfully completed projects of similar size and scope in the past. Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror s performance record, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror completed projects of similar size and scope in the past but may have experienced minor difficulties on the way to completion. Little Confidence Based on the Offeror s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror had difficulty completing projects of similar size and scope and may require Government oversight or intervention to perform the required effort. No Confidence Based on the Offeror s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The past performance record indicates that the Offeror struggled mightily or was unable to complete projects of similar size and scope in the past. Unknown/Neutral No past performance record identifiable.