SOLICITATION NOTICE
65 -- Tablet PC, Female Maternal Simulator, Newborn Infant Simulator, and Pelvic Examination Simulator for High Rish Obstetrics/NeoNatal Simulation Delivery Curriculum and all essential characteristics.
- Notice Date
- 9/16/2005
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- Contracting Office
- US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, ATTN: MCMR-AAA, 820 Chandler Street, Frederick, MD 21702-5014
- ZIP Code
- 21702-5014
- Solicitation Number
- W81XWH-05-T-0775
- Response Due
- 9/22/2005
- Archive Date
- 11/21/2005
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- Synopsis Description High Risk Obstetrics/Neonatal Simulation Delivery Curriculum Solicitation #W81XWH-05-T-0775 This solicitation is being issued as a Request for Quote (RFQ). This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are be ing requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular. This solicitation is not a set-aside. Contract Line Item numbers/items/quantities/units of measure: 0001 Tablet PC 5 LOTS 0002 Female Maternal Simulator 2 LOTS 0003 Newborn Infant Simulator 2 LOTS 0004 Pelvic Examination Simulator 2 LOTS Description of requirements for the items to be acquired. Required Salient Characteristics: TABLET PCs The simulators in this project will be used to measure skill acquisition in the learners in a simulated environment. Instructors will be present in up to four different simulation rooms while learners use the simulators. Instructors will roam about the sim ulation room and take notes, record information, and prepare statements for debriefing at the end of the simulation. We require wireless enabled tablet PCs so that the instructor can roam freely about the several simulation rooms and record observations. Tablets will also be able to interface wirelessly with data streaming from the simulator to capture more feedback information for the debrief session to follow. Features needed are: Intel? Centrino" Mobile Technology with Microsoft? Windows? XP Tablet PC Edition Processor speed at least 1.2 GHZ Wireless capability (Embedded Wi-Fi?, IrDA and Bluetooth?) At least 512 MB RAM Minimum 30 GB hard drive (preferred 60 GB) Digital Video Interface Port (DVI-D) Speak Anywhere" Audio Technology if available Required Salient Characteristics: FEMALE MATERNAL SIMULATOR This device will simulate the delivery of an infant. It is used by physicians to practice difficult deliveries. The simulator needs to have features that can replicate a real delivery. The features needed are: Full size body female Intubatable airway IV arm for meds Multiple fetal heart sounds Automatic birthing system Articulating birthing baby with placenta Replacement parts (cords, cervices, clamps) Instructor and student guides Required Salient Characteristics: NEWBORN INFANT SIMULATOR This device is used to practice resuscitation on newborn and small infants. We will use this simulator to test the preparedness of physicians who go to high risk deliveries and who must revive infants who have had a cardiac or respiratory arrest. Features needed are: Accurate Physical characteristics of an infant Bilateral Chest Excursion and breath Sounds Synchronized Heart Sounds (both normal and abnormal rhythms) Synchronized Cardioversion Needle Decompression (Unilateral) Chest Tube Insertion (Unilateral) Intravenous Access Pulse Oximetry monitoring Non-invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP) monitoring Correct Cervical Neck for flexibility Supports Intraosseous Infusion Provides critical airway landmarks such as realistic Tongue, Epiglottis, Aryepiglottic Fold, Anatomically realistic upper airway Gas Accessory Kit Instructor's Wireless Remote Laptop control Computer External-Room Portable Air Compressor Required Salient Characteristics: PELVIC EXAMINATION SIMULATOR This device is used to simulate a pelvic examination. It should be able to record hand movements, pressures and position of the examiners hands. This device will be used to assess the skill and accuracy of this vital examination technique. Features inclu de: Anatomically correct pelvic anatomy. Interchangeable, Instrumente d Uteri Silicone Lubricant PC monitoring Laptop and software Instrumented Internal Anatomy Spares Kit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delivery Date: Sept. 29, 2005 Place of Delivery and Acceptance: USU Medical Simulation Center, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Name: Col. Mark W. Bowyer, MD FACS Title: Surgical Director of Simulation Address: 2460 Linden Lane, Building 163, Silver Spring, MD 20910 FOB destination The provision at 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors Commercial applies to this acquisition. Provision 52.212-2, Evaluation Commercial Items is applicable. The specific evaluation criteria is included. EVALUATION CRITERIA Tablet PCs T.1.1 TRADEOFF EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD T.1.1.1 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 an Offeror who is not the lowest bidder. If the award is made to the superior tech nical Offeror, then a cost/technical tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Quality Control Approach, Experience, and Past Performance as described in the table below. T.1.1.2 Cost/Price Evaluation The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. Evaluation criteria order of importance is as follows: Evaluation criteria are numbered in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Ap proach, (2) Quality Control Approach, (3) Experience, (4) Price/Cost, and (5) Past Performance. As the technical proposals reach equality in the evaluation of non cost factors, the cost proposals become a more important factor in the overall cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Each Offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to the technical approach listed in the evaluation criteria. 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.1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be used to evaluate the task order proposals. T.1.1.3.1 Technical Approach The degree to which the Offerors technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the requirements set forth within the Required Salient Characteristics. The tablet PC must be wireless to permit an individual to roam freely about through several diff erent simulation rooms and record information and observations in real-time. The tablet PC must include processor technology to allow for long periods of time before battery charging is needed. Tablet PCs must also interface wirelessly with other compute r equipment to enable data streaming capabilities from the simulator in order to capture additional feedback information to evaluate a students performance on a simulation models. The Offeror must present a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is l ikely to yield the required results within the purchased equipment. T.1.1.3.2 Quality Control Approach The degree to which the Offerors approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.1.1.3.3 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive. Degree of reasonableness and realism should be evaluated based on the appropriateness of: 1) Set and mix of equipment capabilities 2) Total Price/Cost T.1.1.3.4 Experience The degree to which the Offerors proposal reflects corporate or proposed staff experience identica l to, similar to, or related to the requirement. T.1.1.3.5 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 utilization of the Offerors product. The Offeror should provide a list of references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers. Relevant is defined as like service or products as stated in this solicitation in terms of similar scope and complexity. 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 contractors past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. E nsure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. EVALUATION CRITERIA Female Maternal Simulators T.1.1 TRADEOFF EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD T.1.1.1 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 an Offeror who is not the lowest bidder. If the award is made to the superior tech nical Offeror, then a cost/technical tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Quality Control Approach, Experience, and Past Performance as described in the table below. T.1.1.2 Cost/Price Evaluation The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. Evaluation criteria order of importance is as follows: Evaluation criteria are numbered in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Ap proach, (2) Quality Control Approach, (3) Experience, (4) Price/Cost, and (5) Past Performance. As the technical proposals reach equality in the evaluation of non cost factors, the cost proposals become a more important factor in the overall cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Each Offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to the technical approach listed in the evaluation criteria. 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.1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be used to evaluate the task order proposals. T.1.1.3.1 Technical Approach The degree to which the Offerors technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the requirements set forth within the Required Salient Characteristics. This device must simulate the delivery of an infant. It will be used by physicians to practice difficult deliveries. The simulator needs to have features that can replicate a real delivery. The Offeror must present a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is likely to yield the required results within the purchased equipment. T.1.1.3.2 Quality Control Approach The degree to which the Offerors approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.1.1.3.3 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive. Degree of reasonableness and realism should be evaluated based on the appropriateness of: 1) Set and mix of equipment capabilities 2) Total Price/Cost T.1.1.3.4 Experience The degree to which the Offerors proposal reflect s corporate or proposed staff experience identical to, similar to, or related to the requirement. T.1.1.3.5 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 utilization of the Offerors product. The Offeror should provide a list of references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers. Relevant is defined as like service or products as stated in this solicitation in terms of similar scope and complexity. 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 contractors past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. E nsure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. EVALUATION CRITERIA Newborn Infant Simulator T.1.1 TRADEOFF EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD T.1.1.1 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 an Offeror who is not the lowest bidder. If the award is made to the superior tech nical Offeror, then a cost/technical tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Quality Control Approach, Experience, and Past Performance as described in the table below. T.1.1.2 Cost/Price Evaluation The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. Evaluation criteria order of importance is as follows: Evaluation criteria are numbered in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Ap proach, (2) Quality Control Approach, (3) Experience, (4) Price/Cost, and (5) Past Performance. As the technical proposals reach equality in the evaluation of non cost factors, the cost proposals become a more important factor in the overall cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Each Offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to the technical approach listed in the evaluation criteria. 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.1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be used to evaluate the task order proposals. T.1.1.3.1 Technical Approach The degree to which the Offerors technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the requirements set forth within the Required Salient Characteristics. This device is used to practice resuscitation on newborn and small infants. The simulator will be used to test the preparedness of physicians who go to high risk deliveries and who must revive infants who have had a cardiac or respiratory arrest. The Offeror must present a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is likely to yield the required r esults within the purchased equipment. T.1.1.3.2 Quality Control Approach The degree to which the Offerors approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.1.1.3.3 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive. Degree of reasonableness and realism should be evaluated based on the appropriateness of: 1) Set and mix of equipment capabilities 2) Total Price/Cost T.1.1.3.4 Experience The degree to which the Offerors proposal reflects corporate or proposed staff experience identical to, similar to, or related to the requirement. T.1.1.3.5 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 utilization of the Offerors product. The Offeror should provide a list of references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers. Relevant is defined as like service or products as stated in this solicitation in terms of similar scope and complexity. 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 contractors past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. E nsure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. EVALUATION CRITERIA Pelvic Examination Simulator T.1.1 TRADEOFF EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD T.1.1.1 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 an Offeror who is not the lowest bidder. If the award is made to the superior tech nical Offeror, then a cost/technical tradeoff will have to be determined and qualified. Non-Cost/Price factors will include Technical Approach, Quality Control Approach, Experience, and Past Performance as described in the table below. T.1.1.2 Cost/Price Evaluation The Government will conduct an appropriate cost/price analysis to determine whether prices are fair and reasonable. Evaluation criteria order of importance is as follows: Evaluation criteria are numbered in descending order of importance: (1) Technical Ap proach, (2) Quality Control Approach, (3) Experience, (4) Price/Cost, and (5) Past Performance. As the technical proposals reach equality in the evaluation of non cost factors, the cost proposals become a more important factor in the overall cost/technical tradeoff analysis. Each Offeror must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of their cost approach as it equates to the technical approach listed in the evaluation criteria. 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.1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria will be used to evaluate the task order proposals. T.1.1.3.1 Technical Approach The degree to which the Offerors technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the requirements set forth within the Required Salient Characteristics. This device is used to simulate a pelvic examination. It should be able to record hand movement s, pressures and position of the examiners hands. This device will be used to assess the skill and accuracy of this vital examination technique. The Offeror must present a reasonable, well-thought-out approach that is likely to yield the required results within the purchased equipment. T.1.1.3.2 Quality Control Approach The degree to which the Offerors approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.1.1.3.3 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive. Degree of re asonableness and realism should be evaluated based on the appropriateness of: 1) Set and mix of equipment capabilities 2) Total Price/Cost T.1.1.3.4 Experience The degree to which the Offerors proposal reflects corporate or proposed staff experience identical to, similar to, or related to the requirement. T.1.1.3.5 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 utilization of the Offerors product. The Offeror should provide a list of references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers. Relevant is defined as like service or products as stated in this solicitation in terms of similar scope and complexity. 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 contractors past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. E nsure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. Offerors must provide a completed copy of the provision at FAR 52.212-3, Offerors Representations and Certifications Commercial Items, with its offer. FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes Or Executive Orders Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. DFARS 252.225-7000 Provision Buy American Act Balance of Payments Program Certificate DFARS 252.212-7001 Clause Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Applicable To Defense Acquisitions of Commercial Items DFARS 252.227-7015 Technical Data Commercial Items DFARS 252.227-7037 Validations of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data DFARS 252.209-7001 Provision Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country DFARS 252.225-7012 Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities DFARS 252.225-7021 Trade Agreements DFARS 252.234-7002 Request for Equitable Adjustment This contract requires all warranties as detailed in the Salient Characteristics. Proposals are due no later than 1400 hours, 22 September 2005. Proposals may be electronically submitted to Kathryn McCune, Contract Specialist, kathryn.mccune@det.amedd.army.mil Please provide your proposal in .PDF format. The firewall utilized for For t Detrick, MD, does not authorize or accept zip files. It is anticipated that a Firm-Fixed-Price order will be awarded for a one time purchase. The anticipated award date is 29 September 2005. Questions may be directed to Kathryn McCune, Contract Specialist, kathryn.mccune@det.amedd.army.mil by 19 September 2005 at 1200 hours.
- Place of Performance
- Address: US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity ATTN: MCMR-AAA, 820 Chandler Street Frederick MD
- Zip Code: 21702-5014
- Country: US
- Zip Code: 21702-5014
- Record
- SN00897480-W 20050918/050916212556 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |