20170725_-_2017-N-66822_-_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors

1. Corporate Capacity and Data Representativeness 60%

2. Technical Approach and Management Plan 30%

3. Past Performance and Experience 10%

100%

1. Technical Evaluation:

Criterion 1: Corporate Capacity and Data Representativeness (60 points) Proposal demonstrates a thorough and complete understanding of the requirements and indicates a clear awareness of the contract objectives. Proposal demonstrates that the representativeness of data and data elements provided meets program objectives.

1. The Offeror shall provide responses to the following:

a. A detailed description of the respondent’s data products with respect to database contents (e.g., data element specification), and geographic, temporal, and demographic coverage of the U.S.

population and pharmaceutical transaction market.

b. A detailed description of the setting(s) in which the data are generated (e.g. how are transactions captured by data provider) and the workflow between data collection and data delivery to business partners, to include relevant business relationships and organizational authorities.

c. A description of the timeliness of data transmitting capability, including data transmission frequency and average lag time between the date and time of the pharmaceutical transaction that resulted in a therapeutic agent being dispensed to a patient and the delivery/receipt of the data record by potential business partners.

d. A description of the technologies supporting the proposed approach; and whether these technologies/platforms/software programs are proprietary or not.

e. A description addressing data quality, including data quality assurance and problem resolution processes at data aggregator if aggregator is not the original data collector.

f. A description of the technical support available to business partner data managers, analysts, and scientists investigating health services issues or operational issues regarding health care data collection, management, and interchange.

g. A listing of the categories of data services that can be provided to meet the requirements of SOW and estimates of the associated costs of data access and use by CDC based on skill sets and time and effort required to deliver data.

2. The Offeror shall provide clarifying responses and supplemental tables in terms of details for pharmaceutical transaction data coverage by geography, pharmacy venue, and pay type. Responses demonstrate the linkage between the pharmacy data and medical claims and their representativeness at the national- and regional-level are critical. The availability of the race/ethnicity variable is also a critical element when evaluating the data representativeness. Responses should be accompanied minimally by the completion of the four defined tables found in Appendix Table 3-7 in addition to a written response.

The Offeror shall provide the following for the data sources to be available as describe in RFP response:

a. Enumerate the participating pharmacies nationally and by state (including District of Columbia along with the percentage of the total universe of pharmacies (Table 3). Provide reference or mechanism used to determine or estimate the universe of retail pharmacies.

b. Total number and Percentage of overall RX transactions nationally and by state (including District of Columbia and territories or US military base locations external to the United States) for 2015 (Table 4).

c. Total number of ARV transactions, percentage of ARV data linked to medical claims data, and percentage of those with race/ethnicity data nationally and by state (including District of Columbia) for 2015 (Table 5).

d. Total number and Percentage of transactions by “pay type” for 2015 (Table 6).

e. Are all “payer types” captured and distinguishable for ALL of the pharmacies /claims described in response (e.g., are cash-based transactions distinguishable from Medicare – B transactions from all pharmacies)? If no, explain.

f. Total number and Percentage of pharmaceutical dispensing locations by class (retail chain pharmacy, retail independent, governmental, institutional, etc.) for 2015 (Table 7).

Criterion 2: Technical Approach and Management Plan (30 points) Response describes the proposed approach to comply with each of the requirements specified in the SOW.

The proposal is consistent with the stated goals and objectives. The proposed approach of ensuring the achievement of timely and acceptable performance is well documented and sound. Milestone or phasing charts illustrate the logical sequence of proposed work events, technical accomplishments and deliverables.

The management plan indicates, in percentage (%), the amount of time each individual will be committed to the project. And also identify any proposed sub-contractor personnel to be utilized on the project and the percentage (%), the amount of time to be committed to the project by sub-contractor personnel.

Proposal provides evidence that the offeror has a deep knowledge of the subject to be able to anticipate and avoid problems, and to react appropriately when problems do arise to meet program objectives.

Criterion 3: Past Performance and Experience (10 points) Offerors shall demonstrate a commitment to customer satisfaction and timely delivery of high quality products and services by providing at least two examples of projects and activities of similar scope and design. Offerors shall be evaluated on (1) record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; (2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; (3) reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and (4) business-like concern for the interests of the customer.

The proposed staff is competent and experienced in the skills required. Resumes of key staff and consultants reflect not only academic qualifications, but also length and variety of experience in similar tasks and clearly demonstrate relevant training and work experience and accomplishments. If subcontractors are proposed, information is provided to support the qualifications of the subcontractors.

For “Key Personnel” positions, curriculum vitae detailing relevant qualifications and experience for each proposed individual, in accordance with the requirements, should be included.

2. Price Evaluation:

A price analysis of the proposal may be conducted to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s price proposal. Only proposals that are rated technically acceptable will be reviewed.

A price realism analysis of the proposal may be conducted for such purposes as determining an Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation’s requirements or assessing risk associated with an Offeror’s proposal.

Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important when compared to price. The Government will not pay a higher price for slightly better performance.