Attachment_B.docx

4) Under Section M - Evaluation Factors for award, sub-section M.5.2 is hereby deleted and replace with the following:

1. GOVERNMENT PRODUCT ACCESSIBILITY PRODUCT (GPAT) (Pass or Fail) The completed GPAT is a threshold requirement for technical review, and will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. A task order proposal that does not include a completed GPAT, or includes a GPAT that is determined to be insufficient, will not pass, and will not be considered technically acceptable. TASK ORDER PROPOSALS THAT FAIL THE GPAT REVIEW WILL NOT BE SUBMITTED FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW.

Prior to technical review, each task order proposal?s GPAT will be reviewed on a pass/fail basis to determine if it sufficiently addresses the Government?s needs as specified in the GPAT. Any task order proposal which does not include a GPAT, or which contains a GPAT that is determined to be inadequate, cannot pass, and therefore will not be submitted for technical review.

2. Understanding of the Statement of Work and the Intent of the Project (20) The proposal shall demonstrate, in the Offeror?s own words, a clear understanding of the scope of work, intent and requirements of the work involved, and how it relates to improving the health status of rural communities through the development of sustainable rural health networks. The Offeror shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the challenges and issues related to providing access to quality healthcare in rural communities. The Offeror shall demonstrate first-hand knowledge and a clear understating of challenges and constraints related to providing technical assistance to small, rural organizations. The Offeror shall demonstrate a thorough knowledge of and have experience with the Office of Rural Health Policy and the 330A grant programs.

3. Technical Approach (20) The Offeror shall thoroughly describe, in the Offeror?s own words, the technical approach to comply with each of the requirements specified under the Statement of Work. The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of the methodology used to address each task. The Offeror shall provide a discussion of any challenges or barriers to performing each task and the potential solutions.

4. Personnel (20) The Offeror shall demonstrate experience designing and implementing comprehensive technical assistance programs to support health improvement and strengthen systems of care to a diverse array of rural organizations. The Offeror shall specify the types of personnel (in terms or education and professional experience) to be employed to perform the tasks and document specifically how their backgrounds contribute to meeting the needs of this contract, including detailed experience providing technical assistance to the grantees of ORHP?s 330A grant programs. The Offeror shall identify the key personnel of the contract. Key personnel include the project director, administrative support staff, technical support staff, and other managers or supervisors who will assume responsibility for the performance of the tasks in the contract. Resumes of other professional persons already identified to be involved in the management and implementation of this project shall be included. The Offeror shall also provide documentation of the qualifications of any subcontractors, contract staff, and consultants working on this contract as well as evidence of commitment to participate. The Offeror shall provide documentation of access to consultants to serve as technical assistance providers who have had experience with ORHP?s 330A grantees.

5. Management Plan (10) The Offeror shall provide a preliminary work plan that includes staffing needs and qualifications of the staff for the project. The Offeror shall specify the responsibilities and organizational placement of each professional and support staff member employed to work on the contract and indicate the amount of time each individual will spend on contract activities. The level of effort of the personnel shall be reflected in the budget justification. The Offeror shall include a detailed cost proposal that is reasonable and relevant and indicates the cost for each task. The offeror shall identify the facilities, equipment and other non-staff resources that are appropriate for successful completion of the contract requirements. This shall include a description of computer hardware and software and arrangements for telephone and e-mail service sufficient to meet workload demands.

6. Capability and Experience of the Organization (25) The Offeror shall document expertise in providing technical assistance to diverse communities and populations, including tribal communities, Alaska natives, migrant farmworkers, immigrant populations, African-American communities, elderly populations, children and youth, and the medically underserved. In particular, the Offeror shall provide evidence of experience working with ORHP?s 330A grant programs and shall provide documentation of already developed technical assistance resources for these grantees. The Offeror shall provide a description of prior and/or current projects that are similar. The Offeror shall demonstrate expertise in health issues such as oral health, diabetes, obesity, and school based health programs. Other areas of expertise shall include care coordination, health care enrollment, health information technology (Electronic Health Records and Health Information), and telehealth. The Offeror shall demonstrate expertise in recruitment and retention of health information technology workforce, with a focus on veterans. The Offeror shall document experience in the following areas targeted to rural communities:

a. Network board development

b. Strategic planning/alignment

c. Evaluation planning

d. Feasibility planning

e. Team building

f. Leadership development

g. Organizational change management

h. Return on investment analysis

i. Business modeling and funding planning

j. Sustainability planning and implementation

k. 501(c)(3) guidance or other non-profit assistance

l. By-law creation and/or revision among rural networks

m. Developing community and member support

n. Developing and sustaining partnerships and collaboration

o. Care coordination

p. Workforce development

q. Health information technology, including electronic health records and the CMS HER Incentive Program (meaningful use)

7. Past Ferformance (5) The Offeror shall be responsible for requesting three (3) references to submit the Contractor Performance Report (Attachment E) to the Contract Specialist no later than September 2,2014, 10:00 am EST by fax at (301) 408-1727 or (301) 443-3486 (no exceptions). Do not submit more than three (3) references. The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any source.

The Offeror's past performance will be evaluated in conjunction with the technical review. The overall total score for the past performance rating for each Offeror will be determined by calculating the average of the surveys received. The overall total score will be rounded to the nearest whole number to assign an appropriate adjectival rating (0 = Unsatisfactory, 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent, 5 = Outstanding).

The elements being rated are as follows:

i. Quality of Product or Service Unsatisfactory- Non-conformances is jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements.

Poor - Overall compliance requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair - Overall compliance requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good - There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.

Excellent - There are no quality issues, and the Contractor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government.

Outstanding - The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".

ii. Cost Control Unsatisfactory - Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor - Ability to manage cost issues requires significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair - Ability to control cost issues requires minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good - There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the Contractor has met the contract requirements.

Excellent - There are no cost management issues and the Contractor has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the Government.

Outstanding - The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the contractor achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".

iii. Timeliness of Performance Unsatisfactory - Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of Agency resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards.

Poor - Delays require significant Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Fair - Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Good - There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements.

Excellent - There are no delays and the contractor has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule.

Outstanding - The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".

iv. Business Relations Unsatisfactory - Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards.

Poor - Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective.

Fair - Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective.

Good - Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is consistently effective.

Excellent - Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeds Government expectation.

Outstanding - The contractor has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent".

Note: 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. If such a circumstance exists, the maximum number of points the Offeror may receive for its technical proposal is 95 and the technical proposal will be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 95. If such a circumstance exists, all technical proposal scores will be converted to a percentage of the total points possible according to the applicable rating scale.