Source_Selection_Plan.docx.pdf

Office of Clinical and Preventive Services

Tort Claims Peer Review Services (19-236-SOL-00017-1)

Source Selection Plan: Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors

The Contractor will be evaluated for suitability for this contract based upon the following evaluation factors.

A. Technical Capability Factor

B. Past Performance Factor

C. Price Factor

A. Technical Capability Factor

Information shall be precise, factual, detailed, and complete. Offerors should not assume that the evaluation team is aware of company abilities, capabilities, plans, facilities, organization, or any other pertinent fact that is important to accomplishment of work. Offerors must submit resumes. Resumes must include information relating to: (a) Professional Education; (b) Certifications; and (c) Previous jobs.

Technical acceptability will be determined by review of information submitted by the Offeror, which must provide a description in sufficient detail to show that services offered meet the Government’s requirements in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS). In additional the Offeror shall:

1. Provide an overview of their business and contractor staff qualifications/certifications (e.g. Board

Certification, DEA Registration, National Practitioner Data Bank, Applicable Licensing, etc.)

2. Detail the methodology for completing tort claim peer reviews within the established 30-60 day turnaround time.

3. Show their business has the pool of required physicians to successfully complete the requirements outlined above. This pool must include the following types of physicians: orthopedics, spine surgery, hand surgery, neurosurgery, neurology, cardiology, emergency medicine, pediatrics and all pediatrics sub-specialties, radiology and all radiology sub-specialties, internal medicine and all internal medicine sub-specialties.

4. Demonstrate the ability to complete Health and Human Services required training for contractors

(Records Management etc.), sign a Business Associate Agreement, abide by applicable HIPPA regulations and adhere to Indian Health Service policies.

5. Demonstrate the ability to communicate both orally and in written format across many platforms.

This includes, but is not limited to: Email, formal correspondence, message/discussion boards, etc.

The Technical Capability Factor indicates, for each Offeror, the quality of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is proposed. The government will evaluate the overall understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the PWS. The Technical Capability

Factor will be adjectivally scored. Adjectival ratings used to score the Technical Capability factor are as follows:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITION

CAPABLE

A proposal having no deficiency which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not detract from the

Offeror’s response.

NOT CAPABLE

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

The following definitions will be used by the evaluation committee to classify the findings of the evaluation of the Offerors.

DEFINITION

Deficiency

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

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength

Some aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

B. Past Performance Factor

The Offeror shall submit the information set forth below for the prime Offeror and any subcontractor or teaming partner.

a. The Offeror shall have a satisfactory record of integrity, business ethics and provide a list of all

Government or commercial contracts and sub-contracts relevant in scope and size to this anticipated effort over the past five years. For each, identify:

i. Contract number

ii. Government agency or company that awarded the contract

iii. The type of contract (e.g., FFP, T&M, etc.)

iv. Brief description of the work

v. Contract value/hourly wage

vi. Contract performance dates

vii. Name, title, telephone number, and email address of at least two people knowledgeable with contract performance

viii. Name, telephone number and email address of the Contracting

Officer and Contracting Officer’s Representative for any

Government contract

b. Experience in medical malpractice peer reviews, for either a public or private entity, shall be documented by the Offeror with:

i. Name of business/entity the reviews were completed for.

ii. Dates the work was completed

iii. Name, title, telephone number, and email address of at least two people knowledgeable with performance of services

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine whether it is relevant to the requirements of this procurement. A rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be given.

Consideration will be given to: overall contract performance, contract type, contract size, and type of services provided. The Government will evaluate the information provided, any questionnaire(s) submitted, Government’s past performance databases, and other sources available to the Government.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, shall receive a neutral rating in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Past Performance will not be numerically scored but will be evaluated using the following levels of confidence ratings:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; and fully responsive to contract requirements. Reportable problems may have existed, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is an acceptable level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. See Factor

A for relevant definitions.

NOT ACCEPTABLE

Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas. Remedial action required in one or more areas. Problems in one or more areas resulting in adverse effects overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. One or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses exist.

NEUTRAL

The case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance

[see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)

C. Price Factor

The price proposal shall be written in a manner that is consistent with the Offeror’s normal, disclosed, and/or approved estimating and accounting practices. Monetary amounts, other than direct labor rates, shall be expressed to the closest whole dollar amount. Pricing shall be electronically entered on the

“Pricing Table” attachment to the solicitation and submitted in this format with the proposal.

Although the price information is not numerically scored and receives no adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the requirement and the resources required to satisfy it. Price analysis techniques will be applied to the Evaluated Price to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government. The “Evaluated Prices” will be compared with the lower “Evaluated Prices” being more favorable than higher “Evaluated Prices.”

Evaluation Methodology:

The Source Selection Authority (Evaluation Committee), consisting of both Subject Matter Experts and

Program Support Staff, will evaluate the quotations. The quotations shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria (listed above) set forth in the solicitation. The evaluator(s) will read each quotation and describe, in writing, the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified to support the ratings given to each proposal. The ratings will be consistent with the evaluator’s written narratives; i.e., a

“Capable” or “Acceptable” rating should be supported by a narrative identifying a significant number of strengths and a minimum number of weaknesses. Any proposal that is unrealistic in terms of technical approach, schedule commitments, and or costs (high or low) will be deemed unacceptable and not considered further.

Basis for Award: Selection of the successful Offeror will be made based on the evaluation criteria (listed above). The quotations will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable approach.

Source Selection Decision: In order to determine which Offeror represents the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable to the government, the Source Selection Authority will rank the offerors rated capable

(Technical Capability factor) and acceptable (Past Performance factor) from lowest to highest based on overall contract price (inclusive of the Base Period and any Option Periods). The lowest priced offer meeting the requirements outlined in the PWS will be awarded the contract.