7. Evaluation Criteria 05.14.2024.pdf

Evaluation Criteria

15BFA024R00000009

Healthcare Delivery Services for Adults in Custody (AIC) in the

Community

Evaluation Factors

The Bureau will evaluate each offer based on the best value, trade-off process as outlined in the Federal Acquisition

Regulation, part 15.101-1- Tradeoff Process. Proposal evaluation will be an assessment of the proposal and each offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Bureau will evaluate all competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors specified in the solicitation. Evaluations will note the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses (to include significant weaknesses) and risks of each proposal, in a summary format with supporting narrative.

Definitions.

• Strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• Deficiency is 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.

• Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• A Risk is a potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Offeror proposals will be evaluated in three areas: Past

Performance, Technical, and Price. The determination of best value, non-price factors (when combined) are approximately equal to price. Technical criteria and past performance will receive equal consideration. Offerors will be notified that should the proposals be considered approximately the same or equal under the non-price factors, price could be paramount in the selection decision.

The Government will assign an adjectival rating to each of the factors/subfactors identified below as well as assigning an overall adjectival rating to each of the evaluation areas. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror meets the evaluation areas/factors/subfactors and solicitation requirements. The adjectival definitions are defined below:

EXCEPTIONAL: Offeror's technical proposal exceeds requirements of the solicitation in many areas. Benefits to the Government/

Bureau are identifiable.

VERY GOOD: Offeror's technical proposal meets requirements of the solicitation and exceeds requirements in some areas.

Benefits to the Government/Bureau are identifiable. Problems may exist, but are minor, and may be resolved through discussions.

SATISFACTORY: Offeror's technical proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Some minor problems exist, but can be resolved through discussions.

MARGINAL: Offeror's technical proposal does not meet some of the requirements of the solicitation. Contractor's technical proposal has identified problems that may result in a negative impact on service delivery (a negative impact on the

Government). Problems are serious but can be resolved through discussions.

UNSATISFACTORY: Offeror's technical proposal fails to meet most of the requirements of the solicitation. Technical proposal has problems that will result in a negative impact on service delivered.

The Government intends to make a single award to an offeror, pursuant to an affirmative determination of responsibility, whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, price and other factors considered. Evaluation criteria to be applied to proposals received in response to this solicitation are detailed below. Offerors are advised that should the offeror's proposals be considered approximately the same or equal under non-price factors, price could be paramount in the selection decision.

1.0 Technical

The technical proposal will be evaluated based on how the offeror intends to perform the technical tasks identified in the

PWS and RFP. The evaluation will consider the soundness and anticipated effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed technical approach. The demonstrated approach to providing an appropriate mix of resources to deliver quality medical care to the adults in custody (AIC) in the community while mitigating the

Government’s cost and security risks, as measured by the subfactors: The following five technical subfactors will receive equal consideration:

Sub-Factor 1 – Communication Plan

Sub-Factor 2 – Network Providers

Sub-Factor 3 – Manage Care Approach

Sub-Factor 4 – Pharmacy Benefits Management

Sub-Factor 5 – Enhancements

The offeror shall complete the Attachment 0013, Network

Certification language, verifying their established network meets the requirements of the BOP. This certification shall be supported by a comprehensive network list prepared in accordance with this solicitation. The proposal will be excluded from the competition if the offeror fails to provide the Network

Certification.

Sub- Factor 1: Communication Plan

Manage resources and maintain open avenues of communication, facilitating the exchange of information between the contract provider, contract RRC facility, and the Government regarding the contract services to ensure medical care is carried out seamlessly.

Sub-Factor 2: Network Providers

Maintain an appropriately sized network of Providers of diverse services as needed, as listed in Attachment 001, which conform to community standards and all local, state, and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the delivery of health care to members of the general public to those

AICs in the community located across the United States

(including Hawaii and Puerto Rico). In addition, Attachment

0012, the offeror shall complete one tab for each identified Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) location, without altering the format or the information. There are

24 tabs and each one represents an RRC. All RRC locations are not included. The completed attachment supersedes any information described in the technical proposal. In the event of any conflicts between the completed attachment and the technical proposal, the information provided in this attachment shall take precedence.

Sub-Factor 3: Manage Care Approach

Develop and implement a managed care approach which provides each RRMB AIC with sufficient identification to facilitate the authorization and delivery of health care services within the contractor’s network of care providers.

This approach shall promote continuity of care for AICs transitioning from community custody to full release from custody.

Sub-Factor 4: Pharmacy Benefit Management

Provide method for pharmaceutical management (e.g. Pharmacy

Benefit Manager (PBM) to ensure AICs obtain routine and urgent pharmaceuticals at competitive pricing in the community. Method should include sufficient identification of the AIC and the payor responsibility.

Sub-Factor 5: Enhancements

Enhancements to the basic contract requirements proposed by the offeror which will facilitate institution’s ability to conform to the BOP’s stated mission.

2.0 Past Performance

Recent and relevant past performance will be evaluated on its performance under existing and prior contracts for similar services, with an emphasis on the similarity of the Offeror’s experience to the Request for Proposal (RFP). The purpose of

Past Performance is to allow the government to review the

Offeror’s recent and historical probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance for the following:

(a) relevancy

(b) quality of services

(c) timeliness of deliverables/adherence to performance schedule

(d) cost control

(e) management

(f) utilization of small business and

(g) regulatory compliance

An Offeror’s past performance information shall include three

(3) of the contractor’s most recent contracts occurring during the past five years that are similar and relevant in nature to the services required in the Performance Work Statement.

Contracts listed may include those entered into with the Federal

Government, agencies of state and local government, and commercial entities. Offerors shall address any instances of past performance problems in the referenced contracts and explain how these problems were resolved. The Government may consider efforts performed by the Offeror for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers as potentially relevant to the Past Performance evaluation.

Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.

References other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the

Government or of whom it becomes aware, and any others who may have useful and relevant information (i.e. Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), System for Award

Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), and the internet).

The Government reserves the right to use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror. Information may be utilized from the references listed in the proposal and other relevant references known to the BOP. The Government also reserves the right to disregard a reference as non-relevant if that reference is unable to provide an informative response. The Government reserves the right to review past performance information received by the Contracting

Officer following the deadline for receipt of proposals and up to the time of award.

Evaluation of past performance will be a subjective assessment based on consideration of facts and circumstances. It will not be on absolute standards of acceptable performance. By evaluating past performance, the Government intends to consider the offeror's record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror's adherence to contract schedules, including administrative aspects of performance; the offeror's reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

and generally, the offeror's business-like concern for the interests of the customer. This is a matter of judgment.

3.0 Factor 3: Price

The Government will evaluate the offeror's price for the overall requirement to ensure it is reasonable. The offeror's evaluated price will be assessed against the evaluation results of the non-price areas in conducting possible tradeoff analysis and determining best value to the Government. Should the proposals be considered approximately the same or equal under the non-price factors, price could be paramount in the selection decision.

Pricing categories are listed below:

• Category 1 o Inpatient Facility Services o Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Services o Home Health and Hospice o Inpatient Psychiatric Services o Long Term Care o Skilled Nursing Facility Services (SNF) o Dialysis Services for end-stage renal disease

• Category 2 o Outpatient Facility Services (includes Outpatient

Hospital and Ambulatory Surgical Centers) o Inpatient Physician Services o Outpatient Physician Services o Ambulance Services o Clinical Laboratory Services o Durable Medical Equipment (DME), Prosthetics/Orthotics, and Supplies o Federal Qualified Health Center (FQHC) o Dialysis Treatment Services o Occupational Therapy (OT), Speech Therapy (ST), and

Physical Therapy (PT)

• Category 3 o Pharmaceuticals (Generic)

• Category 4 o Pharmaceuticals (Non-Generic)

• Category 5 o Non-Medicare Dental Services and Services with “D”

Codes o Optometry Services

• Category 6 o Out of Network (OON)

• Category 7 o Non-Medicare Medical Supplies

• Category 8 o Prescription Eyeglasses Single Lens

• Category 9 o Prescription Eyeglasses Bi-Focal

• Category 10 o Extended Stay Per Diem

• Category 11 o Billing services for medical care rendered to RRMB inmates house with state and local government entities.

An objective price evaluation and analysis will be performed on each Offeror's price proposal. Offerors are requested to submit a separate price proposal for the base period and each individual option period, as specified in this solicitation. The evaluated price will be inclusive of the base year and all option years.

Price proposals will be evaluated to determine which proposal offers the lowest price to the Government. The offeror providing the highest discount from the Medicare rate will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. The offeror proposing the highest premium to the Medicare rate will be considered to be offering the highest price in each category.

The offeror providing the highest discount from the Average

Whole Price will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. The offeror proposing the highest premium to the Average Whole Price will be considered to be offering the highest price in each category. The offeror providing the highest discount from the Actual Billed Charges will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. The offeror proposing the highest premium to the Actual Billed

Charges will be considered to be offering the highest price in each category. For other items, the offeror proposing the lowest unit price will be considered to be offering the lowest price in each category. The Government’s total calculated award amount for each offeror will be evaluated.

Offerors must adhere strictly to the pricing methodology required by the solicitation. Offerors who vary their pricing methodology create a situation whereby the Government cannot conduct a comparative evaluation of offers in pricing aspects.

If an offeror deviates from the required methodology by offering a rate structure other than that which is specified or by offering multiple rates within any category, that offerors proposal will be rejected.

Medicare Payment Methodology - For each category of service to be provided, Offerors will be allowed to propose a variance from the Medicare rate in the form of a discount from or a premium to

Medicare rates established by the Centers for Medicare and

Medicaid Services. The rates established in the resulting contract shall not be construed as participation in the Medicare program; contract rates will merely be equated to Medicare rates of reimbursement without reductions for deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. When appropriate, outlier payments calculated in accordance with Medicare reimbursement methodologies shall be made in recognition of extremely costly stays. The outlier payment shall be calculated based upon the defined benchmark and will consist of the operating portion only. This structuring of the pricing methodology is not intended to be restrictive of any offeror; offerors need only to propose that percentage discount from or premium to the Medicare rate which will reflect the desired level of payment for the category of services rendered.

If during contract performance, it is determined that a necessary contract deliverable is not covered by Medicare reimbursement methodologies, a separate rate shall be negotiated for such deliverable(s).

Non-Medicare Payment Methodology - For each category of service to be provided, offerors will be allowed to propose a variance to actual billed charges in the form of a discount from or premium to the billed charge amount. For Extended Stay Per

Diem, a rate proposed is fixed and includes all covered services.

RISK ASSESSMENT

The Government will conduct a proposal risk assessment. The proposal risk assessment reflects the Government's degree of confidence in the offeror's ability to perform the effort described in their Technical proposal. Proposal risk considers if any aspect of the proposed Technical solution could pose potential adverse impacts on price, schedule or performance of the effort. A separate proposal risk assessment and rating may be applied to all evaluation criteria.