CombSynRFQ-16250SOL00176-080216.docx

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Acquisitions Management & Policy, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14W56 Rockville, MD 20857 August 3, 2016

To: Prospective Offerors

Subject: Request for Quote 16-250-SOL-00176, - New Coding Schemes for Adverse Action and Malpractice Payment Reports BHW208_C_6360

You are invited to submit a technical and price quote in accordance with the terms and conditions as described in the attached Combined Synopsis Solicitation. The period of performance will be one twelve (12) month base period. The anticipated award resulting from this solicitation will be a firm fixed-price contract.

THIS IS A COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICES PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMAT IN FAR SUBPART 13.5 and SUBPART 12.6- STREAMLINED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS-AS SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE. SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES ARE UTILIZED IN THIS PROCUREMENT. This solicitation is a Request for Quotation (RFQ).

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect though Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2005-89.

The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541611 with a small business size standard of $15Million. The product service code is B506, Special Studies/Analysis. This is a total small business set-aside.

The purpose of this contract is to improve the type and quality of data collected for the national practitioner data bank program to make the data more useful in credentialing, and to enhance its utility for peer-review, quality improvement, research, and educational activities. This is particularly essential as it relates to classification of the practitioner type (field of licensure), type of action, reason for action (i.e., basis of action) for the adverse action taken, and type of reason (i.e., allegation) and pay type for the malpractice payment report.

Your quote shall be prepared in accordance with the SOW (Attachment A). The price quote shall include data, other than certified cost or pricing data, to support the overall quoted price and allow the Government to conduct the necessary price analysis. This request does not commit the Government to pay any costs for the preparation and submission of a quote, nor does it commit the Government to make an award. It is also brought to your attention that the Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to expenditure of public funds in connection with this proposed acquisition.

Questions or issues that require clarification or correction by the Government shall be furnished electronically to Mario Checchia mchecchia@hrsa.gov August 9, 2016 12:00PM ET.

The due date for submittal of your quote is on or before 5:00 PM ET, August 22, 2016 via email to Mario Checchia at mchecchia@hrsa.gov.

Sincerely, Jun Ji Contracting Officer

Attachments :

Attachment A - New Coding Schemes for Adverse Action and Malpractice Payment Reports, Statement of work (SOW) dated July 20, 2016 Attachment B –Quote Instructions, Conditions, Notices, Certifications and Other Statements of Offeror’s Attachment C – Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) & Department of Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) Contract Clauses Attachment D – Special Requirements : Terms and Conditions, Service Attachment E – Past Performance References Attachment F- SF 1449

Attachment A

Statement of Work July 20, 2016 TITLE: New Coding Schemes for Adverse Action and Malpractice Payment Reports BHW208_C_6360 I. Background National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was created by Title IV of the Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, Public Law 99-660 (HCQIA). The NPDB is overseen by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Bureau of Health Workforce (BHW), Division of Practitioner Data Bank (DPDB). The NPDB was established to improve the quality of health care, restrict the ability of practitioners to move from state to state or hospital to hospital without disclosing medical malpractice payments or adverse action histories, and encourage protected peer review. This is done by encouraging state licensing boards, hospitals, professional societies, and other health care entities to identify, discipline, and report those who engage in unprofessional behavior. Implemented in September 1990, the NPDB serves as an electronic repository to collect and release information related to the professional competence and conduct of physicians, dentists, and other health care practitioners. Establishing the NPDB represented an important step by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to improve the quality of health care for all Americans.

The NPDB plays an important role in ensuring quality health care and a skilled health care workforce by providing critical information to health care entities about practitioners. The NPDB serves as an alert or flagging system intended to facilitate a comprehensive review of health care practitioners' professional credentials. The information contained in the NPDB directs discrete inquiry into, and scrutiny of, a practitioner's licensure, clinical privileges, professional society memberships, and medical malpractice payment history.

Congress passed Section 5(b) of Public Law 100-93, the Medicare and Medicaid Patient Program Protection Act of 1987, as amended by Section 1921 of the Social Security Act, which broadened the types of information reported to NPDB. Section 1921 added reporting State licensure actions taken against all types of health care practitioners, not just physicians and dentists, to the NPDB. The section also expanded NPDB reporting requirements to include negative actions or findings by State licensing agencies, peer review organizations, and private accreditation organizations against all health care practitioners and organizations. Section 1921 was enacted to provide protection from unfit health care practitioners for beneficiaries participating in the Social Security Act’s health care programs and to improve the anti-fraud provisions of these programs. Congress later amended Section 1921 with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, to add reporting requirements for any negative action or finding. The NPDB implemented Section 1921 for reporting and querying on March 1, 2010.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, enacted on August 21, 1996, required the Secretary of the HHS to create a national health care fraud and abuse control program. The statute also required the Secretary to implement the data collection for this program in such a manner as to avoid duplication with the reporting requirements established for the NPDB. This was accomplished through the implementation of the Healthcare Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB). The legislation that enacted the HIPDB is referred to as Section 1128E of the Social Security Act.

The purpose of the HIPDB was to combat fraud and abuse in the health insurance industry and in health care delivery. HIPDB information was intended to be used in combination with information from other sources in making determinations on employment, affiliation, certification, licensure decisions, and exclusions from Medicare and Medicaid. The information in the HIPDB served as a flagging system to alert U.S. Government and State agencies and health plans that there may be a problem with the performance of a particular practitioner, provider, or supplier. HIPDB information was not to be used as the sole source verification of credentials for a practitioner, provider, or supplier.

Under Section 6403 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Public Law 111-148, which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, the NPDB and the HIPDB were merged into a single Data Bank, referred to as the NPDB. As of May 6, 2013, the NPDB and the HIPDB are now one Data Bank: the NPDB. All HIPDB data were transferred to the NPDB. The merged Data Bank continues to operate under HCQIA, Section 1921, and Section 1128E rules and regulations. Responsibility for the implementation and operation of the Data Bank continues to reside within the Division of Practitioner Data Bank, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Reporting to the Data Bank HCQIA mandates NPDB reporters to report medical malpractice payments and adverse actions taken on or after September 1, 1990. With the exception of reports on Medicare or Medicaid exclusions, the NPDB cannot accept any report with a date of payment or a date of action prior to September 1, 1990. State licensing boards, hospitals and other health care entities, and professional societies are expected to identify, discipline, and report on those who engage in unprofessional behavior. The implementation of Section 1921 added reporting state licensure actions taken against all types of health care practitioners, not just physicians and dentists, to the NPDB. In addition, the NPDB collects any negative action or finding by state licensing agencies, peer review organizations, and private accreditation organizations against all health care practitioners and organizations.

While a medical malpractice payment made on behalf of a physician, dentist, or other health care provider must be reported to the NPDB, medical malpractice payments made by a health care entity, such as a hospital, are not reportable to the Data Bank if the report does not identify a practitioner. When a report is made to the NPDB, a copy is submitted to the appropriate state licensing or certification board within 30 days of date the payment was made. Because medical malpractice actions are often processed by the courts, malpractice payment reports may be submitted years after the date of the incident that resulted in a payment.

In 1997, an interagency agreement (IAA) with HRSA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) included Medicaid and Medicare exclusions in the NPDB. Later that same year, the NPDB made CMS reinstatement reports available to registered users. Thus, Adverse Action Reports (AARs) submitted to the NPDB expanded from adverse licensure and professional review actions related to clinical privileges and professional society memberships to practitioner exclusions from Medicare and Medicaid.

Reports are also collected from private and government entities, including the armed services, located in the 50 states and U.S. territories. To obtain information from government entities, the Secretary of HHS entered into memoranda of agreement (MOA) with all relevant Federal agencies and departments. Section 432(b) of the Social Security Act mandated that the Secretary establish an MOA with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to apply provisions of the Act to hospitals, other facilities, and health care providers under their jurisdictions. Section 432(c) stipulated that the Secretary also enter into an MOA with the administrators of the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to ensure the reporting of practitioners whose registrations to dispense controlled substances are suspended or revoked under Section 304 of the Controlled Substances Act.

Confidentiality of NPDB Information Under HCQIA, information reported to the NPDB is considered confidential and cannot be disclosed except as specified in the NPDB regulations. The Privacy Act of 1974 protects from disclosure the contents of Federal records, such as those contained in the NPDB. Authorized queriers must use NPDB information solely for the purposes for which it was provided. The HHS OIG can impose civil monetary penalties on those who violate the confidentiality provisions. Persons, organizations, or entities that receive NPDB information either directly or indirectly are subject to the confidentiality provisions and the imposition of a civil monetary penalty of up to $11,000 for each offense if they violate these provisions.

NPDB Data In the past, accuracy of information submitted to the NPDB was scrutinized (e.g., GAO, 1993 & 2000). Most of the scrutiny was focused on the underreporting of clinical privilege and medical malpractice payment reports. Underreporting is typically very difficult to quantify, however, the quality of reported information can be addressed. Medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, have questioned the accuracy of information submitted to the NPDB while patient advocacy groups, including Public Citizen, emphasize the importance that NPDB information is correct and essential for advancing public safety and health care quality.

Over the years, NPDB has taken a proactive stance examining its data and ascertaining that many NPDB reports are missing specific information due to weaknesses in the existing classification system. For example, those filing reports in the NPDB are required to select a report code that accurately represents the reportable action. The codes (classification system) are intended to ensure accurate reporting and querying results, and to provide for better comparison of related data, as well as the compilation of nationally consistent data. The report code can be used in many fields; for example, practitioner type (field of licensure), type of action, pay type, etc. However, it is particularly essential as it relates to classification of the reason for action (i.e., basis of action) for the adverse action taken and type of reason (i.e., allegation) for the malpractice payment report. Presently, a significant portion of reports of adverse actions and malpractice payments are classified as either “Not otherwise classified (NOC),” or “Other reason not specified (“other”)” in many fields (see Table 1).

Table 1: Use of “other” Category

(406,417) State Licensure (572,785) Clinical Privileges (21,584)

While the value of the classification system is well understood, the current system is out-of-date, and underutilized by NPDB reporters. In fact, depending on the type of report being submitted, many reporters select NOC or “other” when completing the section of the NPDB report that calls for a specific reason for a report being submitted. An examination of a small sample of report narratives revealed several scenarios of concern. In addition to the inadequacy of the current classification choices that are available to reporters, there are also reporters that are choosing “other” or NOC even when there is an appropriate choice available. There is a need to examine how to reduce submission of reports with values classified as “other” and to achieve a dynamic statistical coding schema that is flexible enough to meet expanding classification needs. Examining the current classification system will involve mining the narrative portion of the reports to determine the categorical deficiencies, talking to the NPDB reporters to ascertain why specific codes are not being used, and to inform future system changes that will address these deficiencies. This will produce actionable information that can be used to inform recommendations for system changes that encourage reporters to accurately represent the reports that they are submitting by using the most appropriate category when available. The results will lead to better and more complete NPDB data, which is directly relevant to patient safety and quality care.

The results of this study are provided for informational purposes which is the needed to create a more precise classification system that to improve the service NPDB provides to its customers. The Data Bank contains information on medical malpractice payments and adverse actions related to licensure, clinical privileges, professional society memberships, and exclusions from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs. Information must be reported to the NPDB as required by statute in such form and manner as the Secretary prescribes; this includes a description of the acts or omissions or other reasons for the action. Those filing reports in the NPDB are required to select a report code that accurately represents the reportable action. The codes (classification system) are intended to ensure accurate reporting and querying results, and to provide for better comparison of related data, and the compilation of nationally consistent data.

This anticipated result of this contract is to assist in improving the NPDB reports and enhance the integrity of NPDB data by updating and expanding the classification system used in a number of fields contained in NPDB reports. The existing classification system provides a structure of analytical codes for classifying the underlying reason(s) why an action is reported to the Data Bank; including nuanced classifications that are meant to serve as a catch-all for a variety of situations that are not discretely captured in the existing NPDB categories. The existing classification system is neither contemporary nor a complete inventory of reportable actions. Therefore, a large number of incoming reports are rendered imprecise and impossible to categorize as they are lacking in adequate detail.

General Data Accessibility Requirements

· The contractor shall not have direct access to NPDB systems nor have access to individual reports.

· The contractor shall have access to and utilize a Secure File Transfer system, such as a password protected website, to be able to exchange protected information and to share files too large to email.

· The contractor shall be required to submit a confidentiality statement regarding the use of NPDB data.

II. Statement of Work

(a) Overall Purpose The purpose of this contract is to improve the type and quality of data collected for the NPDB, to make the data more useful in credentialing, and to enhance its utility for peer-review, quality improvement, research, and educational activities. This is particularly essential as it relates to classification of the practitioner type (field of licensure), type of action, reason for action (i.e., basis of action) for the adverse action taken, and type of reason (i.e., allegation) and pay type for the malpractice payment report. Presently, a significant portion of reports of adverse actions and malpractice payments are classified as either “NOC or “other” reason not specified, henceforth called the “other” category in this document. The results of this contract shall provide the information needed to create a more precise classification system that shall improve the service NPDB provides to its customers and to virtually reduce (or eliminate) the “other” category.

This contract requires evaluation of the classification system that is used in the present NPDB reports. The emphasis will be on the structure of analytical codes for classifying the underlying reason(s) why an action is reported to the Data Bank; that is, basis of action for adverse actions reports and type of allegation for malpractice payment reports.

The contract will examine the current NPDB classification system by mining the narrative portion of the reports to assess whether the “other” category was used because of inadequacy of the current classification choices that are available to reporters vs. when the “other” category is used even though there was an appropriate choice available (see task 10). It will also assess and recommend modifications for system changes that shall help reporters to accurately represent the reports that they are submitting by using the most appropriate classification code (see task 9).

III. Period and Place of Performance The period of performance shall be for (12 months), from the effective date of the contract (EDOC). All work shall be performed off-site and not at a HRSA site.

IV. Tasks

(1) accomplishments during the quarter;

(2) the status of the contract tasks in relation to the approved schedule;

(3) any problems or barriers to completing the scheduled tasks (including personnel and resources problems), proposed methods for overcoming problems or barriers, the main goals for the upcoming month, findings to date, and other information as necessary to document performance.

(1) Based on the literature review, the Contractor shall develop an approach that includes the general analysis of classification system for different variables contained in the NPDB reports. This document will be reviewed by the COR for approval;

(2) The variables that have “other” categories shall be analyzed by the contractor to quantify the extent to which they are being used in place of specific values in different fields;

(3) The contractor shall devise a plan to identify the specific data sources that provides information on specific values that can replace the “other” categories for adverse actions and malpractice payment reports;

(4) The Contractor shall construct a method to map these specific values on “other”/old categories;

(5) Based on above tasks, the Contractor shall recommend modifications for system changes that help reporters to accurately represent the reports that they are submitting by using the most appropriate classification codes.

(1) A description of the study design in sufficient detail to serve as a guide for future replications of the study;

(2) A discussion of the old and new codes;

(3) Produce analyses of the NPDB data to show if the changes impact the NPDB longitudinal research file;

(4) Prepare data dictionary mapping old codes on new/standardized codes. Code values shall be defined in an understandable and logical manner;

(5) An Executive Summary of the study design.

V. OPTIONAL TASKS

The following Optional Task may be exercised during the contract performance.

OPTIONAL TASK 10: Evaluate Report Narratives for Adverse Action and Malpractice Payment Reports

Schedule of Deliverables All Deliverables shall be submitted to the COR identified in the contract for review and acceptance. All deliverables, including data analyses, must be reviewed and approved by the COR. The Government shall have unlimited rights to all data and materials developed under this contract.

The Contractor shall submit all items in the quantities and by the dates indicated to the COR.

· Classification system/code values for Adverse Action Reports

· Classification system/code values for Malpractice Payment Reports

· List of variables that use “other” category

· Number of time “other” has been used

· Method to map old values on new values

References:

United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, National Practitioner Data Bank: Major Improvements Are Needed to Enhance Data Bank’s Reliability (2000), available at http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-01-130.

United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HealthInformation Systems: National Practitioner Data Bank Continues to Experience Problems (1993), available at http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=IMTEC-93-1.

VI. Payments Schedule The Contractor may bill monthly on a fixed price basis in accordance with the above payment schedule. Additional billing instructions will be provided upon award.

VII. Government Furnished Information See clause 352.224-71 Confidential Information Government Furnished Information necessary to complete the work will be furnished to the contractor after award of the contract.

Attachment B - QUOTE INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, NOTICES, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS. QUOTE INSTRUCTIONS: FORMAT AND CONTENTS The quote must be signed by an official authorized to bind your organization. Please submit your technical quote and price quote via email to Mario Checchia mmchecchia@hrsa.gov The Section 508 Product Accessibility Template (PAT), technical and business quotes must be submitted separately and clearly labeled, Volumes I, II and III. Each of these parts shall be separate and complete in itself.

Volume Title I Section 508 Product Accessibility Template II Technical Quote and Past Performance II Price Quote

Volume I Section 508 Product Accessibility Template

Offerors are required to complete the PAT per the instructions of the Section 508 clause and provision. Please see the HHSAR provision and clause below in HHSHAR 352.239-73 ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY NOTICE (DECEMBER 18, 2015) & 7. HHSAR 352.239-74 ELECTRONIC AND INFOMATIOM TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBLITY (DECEMBER 18, 2015).

Volume I- HRSA Section 508 Product Accessibility Template (PAT) must be completed online and submitted as Volume I.

Volume II Technical Quote It must disclose your technical approach in sufficient detail to provide a clear and concise presentation that reflect the scope of the SOW. Volume II – must include a statement indicating whether or not any exceptions are taken to the terms and conditions of the request for quote (RFQ) as part of the quote transmittal/ cover letter. Any exceptions taken must include identification of the specific paragraphs and rationale for each exception.

Technical Quotes shall be single spaced and shall be printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper containing text no smaller than 12 pitch/10 point and be a MAXIMUM LENGTH of SIXTY (60) pages. Each page shall be numbered and each volume shall be tabbed to correspond to the table of contents. Offerors may include 11 x 17 inch foldouts only to display graphics, flow charts, organizational charts, or drawings.

Where data/information appears in one part, it does not have to be repeated in any other part. However, it shall be cross referenced by indicating the specific location including the volume and page number as a minimum. The clarity, relevance, and conciseness of the quote is important, not the length.

Technical Instructions:

1. Statement and Understanding of Project Goals The offeror shall demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the project, the scope, and the purpose of this work. The offeror shall provide a statement of the problem, scope, and purpose of the proposed project in order to demonstrate a complete understanding of the intent, goals, and tasks. The statement shall express an understanding of:

a) The NPDB and its reporting and querying processes regarding medical malpractice payments and adverse actions.

b) The relevant legislation and regulatory requirements that govern the NPDB’s reporting and querying requirements.

c) Issues surrounding the accuracy and completeness of NPDB transactional administrative data.

2. Technical Approach The technical approach shall inform the Government of the methods and approach that will be used to achieve the project goals. Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to justify why a particular method shall be used and not simply restate the tasks. The technical approach shall include the following:

a) A description, outlined in tasks, of how the offeror shall achieve the study tasks/goals.

b) A description and rationale of the proposed method(s) and the associated application of the method(s) in examining the reports that are missing specific information due to weaknesses in the existing classification system.

c) An explanation of how the information produced to create a more precise classification system will improve the service NPDB provides to its customers and to virtually reduce (or eliminate) the “other” category.

d) Performance Work Statement (PWS):

• Details of how each of the tasks will be performed.

•Performance Standards that must be met by the contractor in the PWS with a detailed description about each deliverable.

• A Quality Assurance Surveillance plan.

3. Management Plan The Offeror shall submit a project work plan, person loading matrix, time schedule (including work to be performed and deliverables):

a) The Offeror shall describe their specific organizational capacity proposed for carrying out the project, including:

· Designation of the persons who shall serve as project director and day to-day project manager and any personnel who shall spend significant time on the contract.

· The project manager and research staff who shall have the major responsibilities for project work shall be designated as key personnel.

· Involvement of any consultants or subcontractors shall be described and arrangements to manage their roles shall be specified.

· A Person loading matrix which displays person-days shall be provided. This matrix should also show the appropriate total and subtotals each individual that will contribute to the activities.

· The offeror shall submit resumes for all key personnel for the project

4. Organizational Experience The Offeror shall provide previous, similar organizational experience in the technical and operational areas related to the requirement in the SOW. The Offeror shall demonstrate past experience conducting complex public health projects using large administrative data sets.

Past Performance

The HRSA is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform the services required under this BPA and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services in a timely and effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HRSA will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers. However, HRSA reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

Offerors shall provide three (3) references (see Attachment B) of similar efforts performed during the last three (3) years. This shall include a description of the project, project title, contract number, contract amount, client identification including agency or company name, contracting and COR names(s), address, email, and telephone number. Do not submit more than three (3) references.

Volume III- Price Quote Instructions

1. Complete the Standard Form 1449 The Offeror's Price Quote shall consist of the following sections:

a. Standard Form 1449, Request for Quotations

Offeror’s must complete the following Blocks:

b. Offeror’s shall provide a Volume II Price Quote Cover Letter with its point of contact (name, phone, and email address) that will be responsible for overseeing the rfq submittal.

2. Complete the following chart.

CLIN 0002 (optional task)

TOTAL

The Contractor shall furnish a task by task price breakdown in support of the Statement of work and the quote.

Evaluation :

Award Criteria The technical is more important than the Section 508 Product Accessibility Template (PAT). The technical is more important than price and price is more important than past performance. Technical, past performance and Section 508 PAT when combined is significantly more important than price. In any event, the Government reserves the right to make an award to the best advantage of the Government, cost, and other factors considered.

1. Selection of Offeror

The acceptability or unacceptability of the technical quote will be based upon a technical evaluation. Each quote will be evaluated in strict conformity with the RFQ, utilizing point scores and written critiques.

The Government reserves the right to make a single award, multiple awards, or no award as a result of this RFQ. In addition, the RFQ may be amended if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

The Government reserves the right to make award without further discussions.

2. Best Value Determination Determining the best value of the quote includes the following four factors:

· Factor 1: Section 508 Product Accessibility Template (PAT)

· Factor 2 - Technical

· Factor 3: Past Performance

· Factor 4: Price

Each of the four factors will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis. Factor 1 will be evaluated using colors. Factors 2 will be evaluated using points and Factor 3 will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. Factor 4 will be evaluated on a total price basis including all options and reasonableness based on the price including any proposed discount.

3. Evaluation Criteria/Weights

Ratings/Scores: The Section 508 PAT, Technical, Past Performance, and Price factors will be evaluated using ratings as described below.

Factor 1 – The evaluation of the PAT is independent from the other factors and will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective offeror to meet the requirements of all the applicable Section 508 Provisions as listed in the attached HHSAR clause: 352.239.74 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility. The Section 508 Product Accessibility Template (PAT) will be evaluated as described in this chart.

Factor 2 - Technical will be rated based on the following scores:

Technical Evaluation Criteria

1. Statement and Understanding of Project Goals 10 points The Government will evaluate offeror’s understanding of the project, the scope, and the purpose of this work based on the following areas:

a) The NPDB and its reporting and querying processes regarding medical malpractice payments and adverse actions.

b) The relevant legislation and regulatory requirements that govern the NPDB’s reporting and querying requirements.

c) Issues surrounding the accuracy and completeness of NPDB transactional administrative data.

2. Technical Approach 50 points The Government will evaluate the methods and approach that will be used to achieve the contract goals. The technical approach will be evaluated to determine if the offeror can successfully complete the tasks and fully compliant with the requirements.

3. Management Plan 20 points The Government will evaluate project work plan, person loading matrix, time schedule to determine the feasibility of the proposed approach. The Government will also evaluate the proposed staff resumes to determine if they possess the necessary skillset to perform the required tasks.

4. Organizational Experience 20 points The Government will evaluate Offeror’s organizational experience of similar work in the past in relation to the requirement in the SOW.

Factor 3 - Past Performance Past Performance will be rated as either “Acceptable”, “Unacceptable”, or “Unknown” per the following definitions:

· Acceptable – Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the vendor will successfully perform the required effort.

· Unacceptable – Based on the vendor’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the vendor will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

· Unknown- The vendor’s performance record is unknown.

The Government will consider the quality and relevance of a Vendor’s Past Performance. This consideration is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s “responsibility” determination. The assessment of a Vendor’s Past Performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of a Vendor and subcontractors (if necessary) to successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation. This evaluation will consider the relevance, scope and complexity of past work and the record of performance for such work.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources, including sources outside of the Government.

In the case of a vendor without a record of past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available so that no past performance rating can be assigned, the vendor may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the vendor shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

NOTE: If the Vendor’s past performance is determined “Unacceptable”, the quote may not be selected for award.

Factor 4 – Price

Price will be evaluated on a total price basis including all options per the pricing chart in section 1.

The Government will conduct a price analysis of the total proposed price. The Government reserves the right to reject any quote that includes any assumption that adversely impacts the Government’s requirements.

All other information required in the price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy. The Government reserves the right to clarify any discrepancies discovered during the evaluation.

The Government reserves the right to waive informalities and minor irregularities in quotes received. The Government may reject any or all quotes if such action is in the Government’s best interest. The Government reserves the right to make one award or more, depending on the quality of the quotes received and the availability of funds.

Attachment C

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR) (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ACQUISITION REGULATION (HHSAR) (48 CFR CHAPTER 3) CONTRACT CLAUSES

*** The following provisions apply to this acquisition: 52.212-3 Offerors Representations and Certifications- Commercial Items. *** *** Offerors must complete annual representations and certifications on-line at www.sam.gov in accordance with FAR 52.212-3 Offerors Representations and Certifications- Commercial Items. If paragraph 0) of the provision is applicable, a written submission is required.

***The following clauses apply to this acquisition:

52.204-7 System for Award Management (SAM);

52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions Commercial Items;

52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders Commercial Items including subparagraphs:

(a) The Contractor shall comply with the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses, which are incorporated in this contract by reference, to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:

(1) 52.209-10, Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations (Dec 2014)

(2) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Feb 2009) (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)).

___Alternate I (Aug 2007) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)).

(3) 52.233-3, Protest After Award (AUG 1996) (31 U.S.C. 3553).

(4) 52.233-4, Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim (OCT 2004)"(Public Laws 108-77 and 108-78 (19 U.S.C. 3805 note)).

(b) The Contractor shall comply with the FAR clauses in this paragraph (b) that the Contracting Officer has indicated as being incorporated in this contract by reference to implement provisions of law or Executive orders applicable to acquisitions of commercial items:

Contracting Officer check as appropriate.

X__ (1) 52.203-6, Restrictions on Subcontractor Sales to the Government (Sept 2006), with Alternate I (Oct 1995) (41 U.S.C. 4704 and 10 U.S.C. 2402).

__ (2) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Apr 2010) (41 U.S.C. 3509)).

_x_ (3) 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (June 2010) (Section 1553 of Pub. L. 111-5). (Applies to contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.)

_x_ (4) 52.203-17 Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights and Requirements to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights. (APR 2014) (41 U.S.C 4712) _x_ (5) 52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer Fiber Content Paper (MAY 2011) _x_ (6) 52.204-10, Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract…