Technical_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Indian Health Service

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

GENERAL

The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include Technical Capability, Management Approach/Key Personnel, Relevant Past Performance, and Price. Although technical, management, and past performance factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are more important than price. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make award to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFP. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFP. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed criteria below.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

I. Technical Capability

1. Offerors shall submit its corporate resume that evidences the company’s prior experience with demonstrable past performance in the following areas:

a. development,

b. marketing,

c. implementing,

d. supporting a COTS solution for adverse event reporting, and

e. experience with customer Change Control Boards

2. System must already be a developed Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) product requiring no more than 10% customization. Offerors shall provide its methodology to best meet the agency’s customization needs in most efficient and cost-effective manner.

3. The offer must show how the product will support patient, visitor, and staff adverse event reporting in compliance with AHRQ Common Formats and OSHA requirements.

4. The offer must delineate how the product can support the range of account holders and distributed locations with incident type permission limitations.

5. The offer shall clearly describe the product’s enhanced capability for analytics and ease of report generation (beyond use of pivot tables), such as:

a. facility/service unit incident history by month

b. ability for facilities to customize reports

6. Describe the product’s automated user management feature for not only password renewal but changing user management accounts.

7. Offerors shall provide examples of the past achievements that reflects its timely primary, specialty, and emergency care capability through lower-cost settings.

8. Offeror’s demonstrated and documented examples of quality assurance, quality control, data protection, and user account management.

9. Degree of learning curve that the COTS system and contractor provided documentation / instruction require and System usability for end-users

10. Describe its plan to become FedRAMP Compliant for the IHS environment.

11. IAW HHSAR 352.239-73(b) ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY NOTICE (DEC 2015), offeror shall submit its methodology to meet Section 508 requirement. Offers shall not be considered acceptable without addressing and meeting this requirement.

12. Transition Plan to make COTS software fully operational for all IHS Areas.

13. Software demonstration in-person at IHS Headquarters in Rockville, MD will be requested.

Technical Capability Section above is limited to 25 pages.

II. Management Approach/Key Personnel

1. Vendor must have dedicated permanent staff to facilitate implementation and support of the product over its lifetime. The Offeror shall submit resumes for all Key Personnel to be utilized in the performance of these requirements. The contractor is to determine and provide a list of 4 to 8 key personnel and their proposed role leading significant areas of the operation. Offeror shall clearly note which requirements section that the individual being proposed would work in. Also, the Offeror shall certify that the information on each key personnel submitted is true and complete. Each resume shall be limited to three

(3) pages.

2. Management Approach/Enhanced support – Ability of the contractor to provide enhanced support using key methods, techniques, processes, procedures, etc. to provide additional support to monitor and measure complex processes, identify and mitigate potential risks, ensure the accuracy and timeliness of critical data and reports and communicate effectively to meet the needs of the IHS customers and users.

This Section, except resumes for Key Personnel, is limited to 7 pages.

III. Relevant Past Performance

Offerors will be evaluated on performance under existing contracts and performance on prior contracts. Offerors should note the difference between past performance and past experience.

Past performance relates to quality and how well a Contractor performed, while past experience is about the type and amount of work previously performed by a Contractor.

The Offeror will be evaluated to assess the demonstrated quality of performance on similar work, to include the ability to control the quality and cost of work, timeliness of performance, and effectiveness at accomplishing the goals of previous work. Offerors are required to provide the evidences of three (3) contracts performed during the past seven years or currently in process for the relevant services as are being solicited under this solicitation. Relevant contracts are those contracts that are of similar scope, magnitude, nature, and work. A representative of IHS may contact the offeror’s previous customer(s) for a phone interview to help rate the offeror’s performance.

The Federal Government uses the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to document contractor performance information that is required by Federal Regulations. Past performance information entered to CPARS is available to federal agencies through a separate system called the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for source selection purposes.

The Government may supplement the information offerors provide with performance information it may obtain from any source including its own experience with the offeror.

1. The Past Performance Volume shall include the following information for each contract:

points of contact (Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative and any other pertinent officials that can verify performance) - name, agency/company, address, phone number and email address

Contract title Contract number (and task order number when applicable) Total original, present and/or final contract dollar value Project description and size information Relevancy to the SOW for the subject solicitation

Did the contract include small business subcontract goals and monetary targets for small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation? If so, were the goals and/or targets met?

Provide an explanation of problems, delays, cost overruns and corrective actions taken Contract holder status (prime or sub-contractor)

2. All Concerns shall submit a short narrative that describes their experience in working with communities and organizations that represent a broad range of American Indian and Alaska Native People. Also, offeror shall demonstrate their understanding of IHS mission, goals and customers.

This submission shall be limited to 10 pages, excluding the questionnaires.

COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any contract awarded from this solicitation will contain option provision(s) and periods(s).

In accordance with FAR clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, (July 1990) the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).