Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 1 of 8

Todor, John (CIV)
From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Attachments: Signore, Dan R Mr USAMRAA [[email protected]] Tuesday, July 01,2008 4:54 PM Signore, Dan R Mr USAMRAA Amendment 3 to Aurora Program Support Solicitation (UNCLASSIFIED) High APPENDIX C - PM OGC T-3 - PROGRM SUPPORT Rev.doc; APPENDIX G - Instructions to Offerors.doc

APPENDIX C - PM APPENDIX G OGC T-3 - PROG... Instructions to O...

Classification:

UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE Classification: Caveats: NONE
Dear Offeror: Ref: TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate (TPOD), TRICARE Operations Division (TOD)/Office of the General Counsel - Program Management/T-3 Support, CMID 11734

UNCLASSIFIED

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following corrections: i. APPENDIX C: EVALUATION CRITERIA, To1.1.1, Basis for Award - To include Quality Control Approach, as listed later under the Evaluation Criteria
2. APPENDIX G: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS:

a0 Revised Proposals, if necessary, are due not hours (Eastern Daylight Time), 3 July 2008. Proposals electronically submitted to [email protected] for Fort Detrick, MD, does not authorize or accept zip b. No more questions are being accepted.

later than 0800 shall be The firewall utilized files.

c. Administrative contractor support will be provided to the Technical Evaluation Panel from E.R. Williams, Inc., a Category 1 contractor.

Thank you, Dan Signore
Daniel R. Signore Contracting Officer / Account Manager U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity 820 Chandler Street Fort Detrick, MD 21702 Phone:301-619-7423 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 2 of 8

APPENDIX C: EVALUATION CRITERIA
T.I.I "TRADEOFF" EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

T.I.I.I

Basis for Award

Award of this task order will be made on a competitive best value basis, using "tradeoff" among cost/price and non-cost/price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal. If the award is to be made to the superior offeror, then a cost/price vs. non-cost/price tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Experience and Past Performance. The non-price evaluation factors are numbered in descending order of importance and are as follows: (1) Technical Approach, (2) Experience, (3) Past Performance (4) Quality Control Approach
The non-cost/price factors in their totality are more important than price/cost.

T.l.l.2

Cost/Price Evaluation

The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair, reasonable, realistic, and competitive. As the collective non-cost/price factors reach equality in the evaluation cost/price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis. Each offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to their non-cost/price proposal. Please note that unsubstantiated costs that are considered unrealistic or unsupported or both may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one or more of the factors listed in the non cost evaluation factors upon the completion of the cost/technical tradeoff analysis.
T.I.1.3 Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non-cost/price aspects of the proposal: T.l.l.3.1

Technical Approach

The degree to which the Offeror's technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the capabilities to successfully provide administrative program management support of TPOS's acquisition initiatives. The successful accomplishments of these duties will result in the development of a suite ofT-3 RFP's, smooth transitions of the contracts and successful defense of any procurement protests, as well as continued support for the current TNEX contracts. T.1.1.3.2 Experience

The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects corporate or proposed staffexperience identical to, similar to/or related to the requirement.
The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects the ability to provide Program Management support services to the TMA as needed to operationalize the TRICARE program. Services provided by the contractor shall include supporting Integrated Project Teams and Working Integrated Project Teams, maintaining project milestone charts, and preparing documentation as necessary. The documentation may include Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Functional Requirements Document (FRD), risk assessments,

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 3 of 8

implementation and compliance plans, cost estimates, and Change Management Fact Sheets. All work provided shall be performed in compliance with the DoD 5000 series and TMA directives. Activities supported shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, Claims Processing, HIPAA compliance, DEERS and TEDS support. The Program Manager and Task Manager (SME), Sr. Heaithcare Professional and General Management Professional are considered "Key Personnel" please provide resumes and letters of intent for these positions, for these positions. T.1.1.3.3 Past Performance

The degree to which past performance evaluations either included in the proposal or identified by the evaluators in any other manner, reflect success in the ability to provide administrative program management support of acquisition initiatives. The offeror must provide a list of at least 3 but no more than 5, references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers within the past 3 years. "Relevant" is defined as like service as s~[ated in this solicitation's Statement of Work in terms of similar scope and complexity. It is the offeror's responsibility to provide valid, current and verifiable references. References must include: Name of the Organization that will be providing the reference, Name of the Point of Contact (POC), POC Telephone Number, POC Email address, Contract Number, Period of Performance, and Scope of Work. The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor's past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. Ensure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. T.1.1.3.4 Quality Control Approach

The degree to which the Offeror's approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.I.I.4 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive. T.I.1.5 Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal Past Performance Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal
Rating Low Risk (LR)

Definition and Criteria Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is high confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is a reasonable level of confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Moderate Risk (MR)

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 4 of 8

High Risk (HR)

Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is low confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.
Little or no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no positive or negative evaluation significance. IA W FAR 15.305(a)(2) (iv), in the case o fan 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.

Unknown Risk (UR)

T.l.l.6 TradeoffEvaluation Standard Definitions Rating The evaluators' conclusions (supported by narrative write-ups) identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of an evaluation factor or subfactor. The ratings for each Non-Cost/Price Factor and each of its Subfactors will be expressed as an adjective. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an offeror's proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Performance risks are those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance. Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest. Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially unfavorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest.

Strength

Significant Strength

Weakness Significant Weakness Deficiency

Proposal Risk

Performance Risk

Advantage

Disadvantage

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 5 of 8

Rating Standards for the Non Cost/Price Proposal (Excluding Past Performance) Rating
Exceptional (E) Definition and Criteria

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which should clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The proposed approach includes numerous substantial advantages, and essentially no disadvantages, and can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The solutions proposed are considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes substantial advantages, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in better than satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has both advantages and disadvantages, however the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages and the approach can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, and supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of all the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate The proposal does not demonstrate a full understanding of all the requirements and may pose a risk that the offeror might fail to perform satisfactorily without significant Government oversight or participation. Any advantages that may exist in the approach are outweighed by existing disadvantages. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, or are unsupported. Risk Level: High The proposal demonstrates an approach which will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has one or more substantial disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect very high risk in that they tack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, or indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High.

Good (G)

Acceptable (A)

Marginal (M)

Unacceptable (U)

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 6 of 8

APPENDIX G: INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. Solicitation Contents: The contents of this solicitation are as follows:

Performance Work Statement Non Disclosure Agreement Organizational Conflict of Interest Certification Evaluation Criteria Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Instruction to Offerors
2. Proposal Submission: You are being requested to submit your proposal in response to the requirements of the TRICARE Management Activity, TRICARE POLICY AND OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE (TPOD), TRICARE OPERATIONS DIVISION (TOD)/OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL to perform - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/T-3 SUPPORT. Your submission should include two separate parts: a Cost!Price proposal and a Non-Cost/Price proposal. Both proposals shall reflect the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement and attachments identified below. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for evaluation.

3. Cost~rice Proposal: Your proposed COST/PRICING as a Time and Material order. Your cost/pricing proposal shall provide a price breakdown by labor categories and rates. You are to calculate and state your proposed price in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.
4. Non-Cost/Price Proposal: Your non-cost/price proposal should clearly reflect how you propose to comply with the performance required identified in the Performance Work Statement regardless of the Government's estimated effort. Your non-cost/price proposal, including any supporting documentation, is to be clear and concise. If you intend to use any labor categories that you feel are consistent in duties with the PWS level of effort labor categories but are titled differently, in accordance with your cost accounting procedures, the Government requests that you cross map those labor categories to the Government's PWS, to ensure your proposal receives a proper evaluation. The non-cost/price proposal is limited to 20 singlesides pages (not including resumes and past performance).

5. Transition: Your transition in and out efforts should be priced separately for the periods specified in this RFP. You are to provide a plan for 10 days of incoming transition from contract to contract. This plan is to be submitted as part of your non-cost/price proposal (subject to applicable overall non-cost/price proposal page limits). This transition plan shall include: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Coordination with Government representatives, Review, evaluation and transition of current support services, Transition of historic data to new contractor system, Government-approved training and certification process, Transfer of hardware warranties and software licenses, Transfer of all System/Tool documentation to include, at a minimum: user manuals, system administration manuals, training materials, disaster recovery manual, requirements traceability matrix, configuration control documents and all other documents required to operate, maintain and administer systems and tools,

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 7 of 8

Transfer of compiled and uncompiled source code, to include all versions, maintenance updates and patches, Orientation phase and program to introduce Government personnel, programs, and users to the Contractor's team, tools, methodologies, and business processes, Distribution of Contractor purchased Government owned assets, including facilities, equipment, furniture, phone lines, computer equipment, etc., Transfer of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Government Furnished Information (GFI), and GFE inventory management assistance, Applicable TMA briefing and personnel in-processing procedures, Issue and account for government keys, ID/access cards, and security codes. 6. Contract Line Item Structure: The planned Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) structure of the task order follows: CLIN Contract Description

Type
0001 T&M Transition Support Labor 0002 T &M 0003 T&M

Base Period--TAD Program Management Support Base Period - Program Support Office Of The General Counsel
ODC's Option Period 1 -TAD Program Management Support Option Period 1 Program Support Office Of The General Counsel ODC's Option Period 2 - TAD Program Management Support Option Period - Program Support Office Of The General Counsel ODC's

0004 T &M 1001 Optionl
T&M

1002 Option 1 1003 Option 1 2001 Option2

T&M T&M T &M

2002 Option 2 2003 Option 2

T&M T&M

7. Government Estimated Level of Effort: The Government estimates that this order will require an approximate level of effort as outlined in the PWS. Please note that the Government estimate is only put in place for Offerors to ascertain the approximate or estimated level of effort for this task. However, this is not to be construed as either mandatory or necessarily the best technical approach. It is only in place as a reference to allow Offerors to better understand the general scope of this effort from the Government's perspective. The Government is seeking the best level of effort and labor mix your company feels is right to accomplish the mission contained in this task statement. If you feel either the labor categories or overall level of effort provided are not your best technical solution, you are strongly encouraged and expected to submit a level of effort consistent with all of the cost/price and non-cost/price aspects of your approach.

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 15-8

Filed 07/09/2008

Page 8 of 8

Revised Proposals, if necessary, are due not later than 0800 hours (Eastern Daylight Time), 3 July 2008. Proposals shall be electronically submitted to bar [email protected]. The firewall utilized for Fort Detrick, MD, does not authorize or accept zip files. It is anticipated that a T&M order will be awarded for a Base Period and Two Option Periods. The anticipated award date is 15 July 2008.

No more questions are being accepted. Administrative contractor support will be provided to the Technical Evaluation Panel from E.R. Williams, Inc.