Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 1 of 14
APPENDIX C: EVALUATION CRITERIA
T.I.1 "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 tradeoffwill 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, and (3) Past Performance. 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.l.l.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 (including approach to staffing) reflects a clear understanding of the capabilities to successfully assist the organization and execution of large-scale meetings, conferences, workshops, symposia, teleconferences and a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame.
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, 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
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 2 of 14
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. Healthcare 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 assist with event organization by researching for and recommending facilitators, translators, and moderators; researching, recommending, and securing facilities and participant accommodations in support of events; and assisting with conducting events through registering participants, liaison with event facility employees and managers, and other logistical support activities incidental to the event. 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 stated 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.1.4 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive.
T.l.l.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.
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 3 of 14
Moderate Risk (MR)
Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is a reasonable level of confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. 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), h~ the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past petformance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
High Risk (HR)
Unknown Risk (UR)
T.I.1.6 Tradeoff Evaluation 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 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 4 of 14
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 lack 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 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 5 of 14
APPENDIX E: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)
QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN
For: TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate (TPOD), TRICARE Operations Division (TOD)/Office of the General Counsel - Program Management/T-3 Support Contract Number: TBD Contract Description: To provide for program management support services to the TRICARE Policy and Operations Division (TPOD) to operationalize the TRICARE Program. Contractor's name: TBD (hereafter referred to as the contractor). 1. PURPOSE.
This Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) provides a systematic method to evaluate performance for the stated contract. This QASP explains the following: ¯ What will be monitored. ¯ How monitoring will take place. ¯ Who will conduct the monitoring. ¯ How monitoring efforts and results will be documented. This QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work. Rather, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor is responsible for management and quality control actions to meet the terms of the contract. It is the Government's responsibility to be objective, fair, and consistent in evaluating performance. In addition, the QASP should recognize that unforeseen and uncontrollable situations may occur. This QASP is a "living document" and the Government may review and revise it on a regular basis. However, the Government shall coordinate changes with the contractor. Updates shall ensure that the QASP remains a valid, useful, and enforceable document. Copies of the original QASP and revisions shall be provided to the contractor and Government officials implementing surveillance activities.
The following FAR clauses may apply depending on contract type:
52.246-6 Inspection of Services- Time-and-Material and Labor-Hour 2. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
The following personnel shall oversee and coordinate surveillance activities.
a. Contracting Officer (KO) - The KO shall ensure performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensure compliance with the contract terms, and shall safeguard the interests of the United States in the contractual relationship. The KO shall also assure that the contractor receives impartial, fair, and equitable treatment under this contract. The KO is ultimately responsible for the final determination of the adequacy of the contractor's performance.
Assigned KO: Daniel Signore Organization or Agency: U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity Telephone: 301-619-7423 Email: [email protected]
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 6 of 14
b. Acquisition Manager (AM) - The AM acts as an acquisition consultant and serves as liaison between the TRICARE Procurement Support Office (TPS) and the requesting program office, as well as liaison between the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) and the supporting contracting office.
Assigned AM: RoDonda Thompson Telephone: 703-681-1095 Email: RoDonda,[email protected]
c. Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) - The COR is responsible for technical administration of the contract and shall assure proper Government surveillance of the contractor's performance. The COR shall keep a quality assurance file. At the conclusion of the contract or when requested by the KO, the COR shall provide documentation to the KO. The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government's behalf. The contractor shall refer any changes they deem may affect contract price, terms, or conditions to the KO for action.
Assigned COR: Donald Trembly Telephone: (303) 676-1212 Email: [email protected] d. Other Key Government Personnel Task Manager: Kenneth Jacobs Title: Telephone: 303-676-3568 Email: Kenneth.Jacobs@tma,osd.mil
3. CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVES: The following employees of the contractor serve as the contractor's Program Manager and Task Manager for this contract.
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 7 of 14
Performance Standards Summary Matrix Task 1. Program Management Support (See Para 2.2.1) 2. Transition and Integration Contract Support (See Para 2.2.2) Indicator Provide professional, technically knowledgeable staff to support TMA operations.
Provide professional, technically knowledgeable staff to support TMA transition efforts from TNEX to T-3 contracts.
Standard Timeliness of completed projects.
Acceptable Quality Level
95% of assigned projects are accurately completed by the due date. )5% of assigned 9rojects are accurately completed by the due date.
Method of Surveillance Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints. Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints.
Incentive Past Performance
Timeliness of completed projects.
Past Performance
3. OGC Support (See Para 2.2.3)
Provide professional para-legal support to OGC. Provide administrative support on an as required basis.
Timeliness of completed projects.
Administrative Support (See Para 2.2.4) 5. Special Studies and Trend Analysis (See Para 2.2.5)
Timeliness of completed projects.
Support the a. Timeliness of analyses and completed projects. design of b. Quality of program options. supporting documentation.
95% of assigned projects are accurately completed by the due date. 95% of assigned projects are accurately completed by the due date. a. 95% of assigned projects are accurately completed by the due date. b. Documentation is adequate to support conclusions or recommendations 95% of the time.
SME will be available within 10 calendar days of notification of requirement.
Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints. Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints. Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints.
Past Performance
Past Performance
Past Performance
6. Subject Matter Expert (SME) Support (See Para 2.2.6)
Provide SMEs to support T-3 initiatives.
Timeliness of access to qualified expert personnel.
Periodic Observation and written or oral complaints.
Past Performance
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 8 of 14
5. INCENTIVES. The Government shall past performance as incentives. Incentives shall be based on exceeding, meeting, or not meeting performance standards. 6. METHODS OF QA SURVEILLANCE. Various methods exist to monitor performance. The COR shall use the surveillance methods listed below in the administration of this QASP. Regardless of the surveillance method, the COR shall always contact the conta'actor's task manager or on-site representative when a defect is identified and inform the manager of the specifics of the problem. The COR, with assistance from the AM, shall be responsible for monitoring the contractor's performance in meeting a specific performance standard/AQL. a. DIRECT OBSERVATION. Periodic observation. b. VALIDATED USER/CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS. This method relies on the user of the service to identify deficiencies. Complaints are then investigated and validated. Surveillance results may be used as the basis for actions (to include payment deductions) against the contractor. In such cases, the Inspection of Services clause in the Contract becomes the basis for the KO's actions. 7. RATINGS. Metrics and methods are designed to determine if performance exceeds, meets, or does not meet a given standard and acceptable quality level. A rating scale shall be used to determine a positive, neutral, or negative outcome. The following ratings shall be used: EXCEPTIONAL: SATISFACTORY: UNSATISFACTORY: Performance significantly exceeds contract requirements to the Government's benefit. Performance meets contractual requirements. Performance does not meet contractual requirements.
8. DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE. a. ACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE. The Government shall document positive performance. A report template is attached. Any report may become a part of the supporting documentation for fixed fee payments, award fee payments, or other actions. b. UNACCEPTABLE PERFORMANCE. When unacceptable performance occurs, the COR shall inform the contractor. This will normally be in writing unless circumstances necessitate verbal communication. In any case the COR shall document the discussion and place it in the COR file.
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 9 of 14
When the COR determines formal written communication is required, the COR shall prepare a Contract Discrepancy Report (CDR), and present it to the contractor's task manager or 0n-site representative. A CDR template is attached to this QASP. The contractor shall acknowledge receipt of the CDR in writing. The CDR will specify if the contractor is required to prepare a corrective action plan to document how the contractor shall correct the unacceptable performance and avoid a recurrence. The CDR will also state how long after receipt the contractor has to present this corrective action plan to the COR. The Government shall review the contractor's corrective action plan to determine acceptability. Any CDRs may become a part of the supporting documentation for contract payment deductions, fixed fee deductions, award fee nonpayment, or other actions deemed necessary by the KO. 9. FREQUENCY OF MEASUREMENT.
Frequency of Measurement.
During contract/order performance, the COR shall take periodic measurements, periodic, as specified in the AQL column of the Performance Standards Summary Matrix, and shall analyze whether the negotiated fi'equency of measurement is appropriate for the work being performed. b. Frequency of Performance Assessment Meetings. The COR shall meet with the contractor monthly to assess performance and shall provide a written assessment. Prepared by:
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 10 of 14
PERFORMANCE REPORT
1. CONTRACT NUMBER:
Signature - Contracting Officer's Representative
Date
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 11 of 14
CONTRACT DISCREPANCY REPORT (CDR)
< This template will be used to formally document discrepancies. > 1. Contract Number:
Signature - Contracting Officer's Representative Received by:
Date
Signature - Contractor Task Manager or on-site representative Date
< The COR may initiate a CDR at any time, including whenever the number of monthly recorded defects for a performance standard exceeds the allowable number of defects; anytime unacceptable performance is determined critical in nature and requires formal corrective action; and whenever an unfavorable trend is detected in contractor performance.>
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 12 of 14
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 MANAGEMENTfr-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/Price 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, 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, ¯ . Review, evaluation and transition of current support services,
Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB
Document 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 13 of 14
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: Contract Description CLIN
Type
0001 T&M
Transition Support Labor 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
0002 T &M
0003
T&M
0004 T &M
1001 Option 1 T&M
1002 Option 1 1003 Option 1
2001 Option2
T&M T&M T &M
Option Period 2 - TAD Program Management Support Option Period - Program Support Office Of The General Counsel
ODC's
2002 Option 2 2003 Option 2
T&M T&M
7. Government Estimated Level of Effort: The Govermnent 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 15-6
Filed 07/09/2008
Page 14 of 14
Proposals are due not later than 0900 hours (Eastern Time), 30 June 2008. Proposals shall be electronically submitted to [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. All questions should be addressed in writing to Kelly Green, Contract Specialist at [email protected],army.mil. Questions shall be submitted not later than 0900 hours (Eastern Time) on 23 June 2008. Only one set of questions shall be received from each offeror. Numerous emails from one offeror shall not be accepted.
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms