Attachment_J.11-C_Prop_Inst_and_Eval_Criteria_TO_0003.pdf

Attachment J.11-C TO 0003

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

General Instructions for Task Order 0003 - Kidney Disease Quality Measure Development, Maintenance, and Support

The following establishes the acceptable minimum requirements for the format and content of proposals.

A. The Offeror’s proposal submission shall consist of:

Volume I – Technical Proposal Volume II – Business Proposal Volume III – Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Proposal

Each of the parts shall be separate and complete so that the evaluations are independent of each other. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price/cost; however, resource information such as data concerning labor hours and categories, subcontracts, etc., may be contained in the technical proposal so that Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be evaluated.

B. Question Submission:

All communication and questions concerning this Task Order Request for Proposal (TORP) shall be submitted electronically via e-mail to MIDS2018@cms.hhs.gov no later than 1:00 PM ET, March 1, 2018. Questions submitted to any other e-mail address, by telephone or verbally will not be honored.

CMS will answer relevant questions by amendment to this solicitation, with copies of both the questions and answers being supplied to all prospective Offerors via FedBizOpps at www.fbo.gov, without reference as to the originating source.

Offerors shall submit any questions they may have via e-mail in the form of an electronic file attachment in Microsoft Excel format utilizing the question template, Attachment J.8. The subject line of the e-mail shall specify “MIDS Task Order 0003 questions.”

Submission of Questions shall include at a minimum: Company Name, Address, Point of Contact and Phone Number for questions submitted.

As soon as an Offeror is aware of any problems or ambiguities in interpreting the specifications, terms and conditions, instructions or evaluation criteria of this solicitation, the Contracting Office shall be notified.

mailto:MIDS2018@cms.hhs.gov http://www.fbo.gov/

C. Intent to Submit a Proposal Submission:

Offerors that intend to submit a proposal in response to this TORP are requested to submit a Notice of Intent to Submit a Proposal. The notice shall be submitted via e-mail with the subject title “MIDS Intent to Submit for Task Order 0003” to MIDS2018@cms.hhs.gov by 11:00 AM ET March 16, 2018. Please be advised that an intent to submit a proposal is not binding on the Offeror and is for planning/scheduling purposes only. In addition, an Offeror that submits a negative intent or does not submit an intent is not precluded from submitting a proposal.

D. Proposal Submission:

1. Proposals shall be submitted via e-mail to MIDS2018@cms.hhs.gov no later than 11:00

AM ET April 9, 2018.

Each proposal submission shall be submitted via e-mail separately, i.e. the TO 0003 submission shall be submitted with the subject “MIDS Proposal for TO 0003”.

Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, so that they are received by the time specified. Based upon the size of the electronic submissions, Offerors are advised that the Agency often holds transfer of large documents to after core work hours, so as not to disrupt the normal flow of business. Therefore, it is recommended that Offerors account for possible delay and provide additional transmission time.

2. Specifications for electronic submissions:

a. All files shall be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 or later versions.

b. Each file shall be printable to 8.5”x11” paper and be readable without requiring formatting adjustments. Type font shall be Times New Roman. Type size shall not be less than 12 point. Margins shall be no less than 1". Graphs and tables shall be no less than 10 point font. All pages shall be numbered.

c. CMS requires separate attachments for each volume. Each volume shall be submitted in one (1) PDF file with the exception of Excel spreadsheets. Excel spreadsheets shall be included in the PDF file as well as submitted separately.

d. Each PDF shall be organized using a Table of Contents to clearly identify all sections.

Each PDF must contain Bookmarks corresponding to each item in the Table of Contents.

e. Each PDF name shall be labeled with the offeror’s corporate name (or initials), volume number, solicitation number and Task Order (TO) number.

f. Based upon size of potential proposals, Offerors may find it necessary to submit multiple emails. Each email must indicate the solicitation number and total number of emails being submitted. For example, “MIDS TO 0003 Email 1 of 3”.

g. Excel spreadsheets must allow full functionality and editing. No cells shall be locked.

h. Volumes/sections may have a specified page limit. Any pages beyond the stated page limit will not be considered.

i. Volumes/sections that do not have a specified page limit are expected to be carefully prepared to be clear and concise.

j. Each of the volumes shall be separate and complete so that the evaluations are independent of each other. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price/cost; however, resource information such as data concerning labor hours and categories, subcontracts, etc., may be contained in the technical proposal so that Offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be evaluated.

3. Cover Letter/Page. Each volume shall include a cover page that includes the following information:

a. Solicitation number, Task Order number, and Volume number

b. Offeror’s legal name and address

c. Name, phone number and e-mail address of primary contact

d. DUNS Number

e. Business Size

f. Confirmation that Offeror is registered in SAM under the applicable NAICS Code

g. Proposed Cost (for Business Proposal only)

h. Assumptions, if applicable

E. Technical Proposal Instructions (Volume I)

Technical Proposal Format:

• Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

• Technical Understanding and Approach

• Management Plan and Corporate Capacity

• Key Personnel and Essential Staff

• Past Performance (not included in page limit)

• Small Business Utilization (not included in page limit but cannot exceed 4 pages)

• 508 Compliance (not included in page limit)

• Appendix (not included in page limit)

Volume I shall be no more than thirty-five (35) single-spaced pages.

1. Table of Contents (Not included in page limit)

Offerors shall include a Table of Contents that identifies and clearly labels the various proposal sections.

2. Technical Understanding and Approach

Proposals which merely offer to conduct the work in accordance with or to meet the Government’s requirements as set forth in the TO Statement of Work (SOW) will not be eligible for award. The Offeror shall make a clear and concise presentation of the technical approach chosen for the proposed TO. This approach shall demonstrate an understanding of all aspects of the requirement. The proposal must explain the proposed technical approach in conjunction with the project objectives, the tasks to be performed, and the expected outcomes (and/or deliverables). The Offeror shall provide clear and appropriate detail in the proposal to indicate an in depth technical understanding of, and capability for, performing all aspects of the SOW.

a. Environmental Scan and Empirical Review.

1) Describe the methodology for conducting environmental scans for a measure topic and/or quality measure concept.

2) Describe the Quality Measure Development and Re-Evaluation Life Cycle and how it serves the goal of implementing Meaningful Measures.

3) Describe the Environmental Scan and Empirical Review methods and approach, including specific strategies for informing subsequent steps in the development process.

4) Present key measure topics and/or quality measure concepts the Offeror believes best reflect the priorities of developing Meaningful Measures, focusing on outcome measures, and minimizing burden, within the context of the End-stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Quality Improvement Program (QIP), Dialysis Facility Compare (DFC) public reporting, and the Quality Payment Program (QPP).

b. Quality Measure Development and Re-Evaluation.

1) Describe the role of Technical Expert Panels (TEP) in developing and/or re-evaluating Quality Measures.

2) Describe the use of standardized measure selection criteria.

3) Describe the quality measure development and reevaluation process in relation to national priorities, including the application of Meaningful Measure priorities, burden reduction, and focusing on patient outcomes.

4) Describe how the Offeror will address the development of patient-reported outcomes measures and how these are distinct from measures based upon clinical or administrative data.

5) Demonstrate an effective strategy for using the development process to strengthen submissions to the Consensus Endorsement Entity (National Quality Forum (NQF)) for endorsement, and support later rulemaking.

6) Describe data sources particularly those related to Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and ESRD clinical and administrative data in terms of their utility for developing and implementing quality measures relevant to the SOW.

7) Describe the types of expertise necessary to effectively develop quality measures relevant to the SOW, and the DFC Star Ratings methodology.

c. Instrument/Item Development.

1) Describe instrument and data item information technology standards and how these affect development or modification of existing health assessment instruments, data bases, and other vehicles for collecting and storing data relevant to measure supported by the SOW. These may include but are not limited to

CROWNWeb, the ESRD Quality Reporting System (EQRS), and Medicare Claims.

2) Describe the approach for supporting instrument and data item development and maintenance.

d. Testing/Validation

1) Describe the statistical standards the Offeror has relative to validation, risk adjustment and risk adjustment models, reliability, etc.

2) Describe role of validation in measure development, measure maintenance, and implementation in relevant programs.

3) Describe proposed strategies for, and prior experience in, performing field tests, dry runs, etc.

4) Describe strategies for engaging providers and other stakeholders to partner for the collection of data for alpha and beta testing.

e. Implementation & Production

1) Detail a strategy for undertaking the quarterly production of data files supporting the quarterly refresh of DFC public reporting data.

2) Describe the process which the Offeror would employ to implement health assessment instruments or other data collection vehicles into existing systems.

3) Describe experience, process and minimum statistical standards in the calculating and providing public reporting of quality measures.

4) Describe processes for quality assurance of data calculations and measure production, including specific methods used.

5) Describe processes for coordination with other relevant contractors

6) Explain how Offeror will apply LEAN methodologies (or an alternate reasonable approach) to accomplish the tasks, requirements and sub-tasks as described in the

SOW.

7) Explain the organization’s experience and application of LEAN methodologies (or an alternate reasonable approach) to the proposed business processes.

8) Describe the Offeror’s approach to supporting implementation and production with appropriate documentation as required by the SOW.

f. Public Reporting

1) Describe processes for delivering measure data files, DFC content files, and provider previews accurately on a quarterly basis.

2) Demonstrate extensive knowledge of the DFC site and the data reported therein.

3) The evaluation will consider any innovative approaches proposed by the offeror for the reporting of public data, or provision of preview reports that enhance utility of the data to patients, providers, researchers, and other stakeholders.

If the offeror proposes subcontractors for this effort, the proposal shall describe the subcontracting approach, including the subcontractor’s past performance and experience in performing activities of similar size and scope, personnel proposed to be used for this effort, availability of proposed personnel, and initiatives taken to identify any potential integrity issues with the subcontractor. The offeror also must show the ability to effectively manage and monitor subcontractors to include consideration for cost efficiency and cost effectiveness of having numerous subcontractors.

3. Management Plan and Corporate Capacity

The Offeror shall describe how it will organize and manage the project, how tasks will be prioritized, sequenced, organized into time frames, and the management control and coordination tools (including appropriate technology) that will be used to assure the timely and successful conduct of the proposed TO. The plan should also address the process to handle tasks that may occur simultaneously and tasks that will need to occur in parallel for optimal efficient use of resources. It shall include: resource allocations, milestone measures by task, hours committed to a “key or essential” person by task; and a designation of what tasks will be performed by the prime, by a subcontractor, or by a consultant. The plan should also describe the lines of communication among all of the responsible partners.

a. Individual TO needs will dictate specific management, quality assurance and staffing plans, but the Offeror shall describe a reasonable approach to spanning all settings of care and domains of care, taking into consideration that individual TO needs will dictate specific management, quality assurance and staffing plans.

b. Discuss how Offeror proposes to provide an efficient and effective proposal to maintain communications and coordination with Government representatives to assure maximum effectiveness and minimum interference with Agency operations.

c. Discuss in appropriate detail all lines of authority and communication for the proposed organization.

d. Address the method to be employed for obtaining labor for additional work.

e. Describe methods and processes for tracking project progress, risks, and issues.

f. Provide a clear communication strategy.

g. Provide a plan for public reporting of ESRD quality measures beginning in April

2019.

h. Clearly identify and discuss the extent to which work will be accomplished by subcontract, based on the SOW. Work to be performed by the subcontractor shall include a detailed rationale.

4. Key Personnel and Essential Staff

The Offeror shall identify its proposed key personnel and essential staff to be utilized under the TO. Identify the positions that will be assigned to manage performance and supervise the work under this TO. Provide information that will identify each position’s general qualifications and recent experience with similar projects or contracts. The Offeror shall include educational background, professional experience, and special qualifications directly related to the TO. Offeror shall state if the key personnel is an employee of the prime, an employee of a proposed subcontractor, or a consultant; and how they will be integrated organizationally, their proposed responsibilities, and the percentage of time dedicated to the TO.

Key Personnel shall include, but not necessarily be limited to:

• Program Manager – The Project Manager shall possess a Master’s Degree or equivalent degree in a relevant field with a minimum of 5 years or experience managing complex projects, including experience with quality measure development, quality improvement, public reporting of quality data, and/or stakeholder engagement. The experience should be relevant to ESRD, CKD, and related areas of health.

• Project Director - The Project Director shall possess a PhD, MD, or equivalent degree with a minimum of 10 years of combined expertise in kidney disease-related clinical care, research, quality measure development, or quality improvement. Candidates should demonstrate knowledge of the CMS kidney disease-related quality programs. A strong publication history in fields relevant to the task order will also be considered.

• Lead Clinical Nephrologist - This position should possess a minimum of 10 years of combined experience treating patients in a clinical setting as a nephrologist and developing quality measures relevant to ESRD, CKD, and related fields.

• Data Lead – This position should possess Master’s Degree in a relevant field and a minimum of 5 years’ experience accessing large data sets, including, but not limited to, Medicare Claims, CROWNWeb, SIMS, and REMIS. The evaluation will consider additional experience in lieu of the degree requirement.

• Additional Key Staff – The Offeror shall include any additional Key staff based upon the proposed technical approach. The evaluation will consider the rationale for their inclusion.

For Key Personnel, the Offeror shall define the responsibilities, qualifications and prior experience. The Offeror shall indicate roles fulfilled by Key Personnel and essential staff.

The Offeror shall indicate which, if any, are subcontractors. The Offeror shall provide information on manpower to support project management needs, key personnel experience with public reporting as well as expertise in a broad spectrum of issues-

• urban health care issues;

• safety net health care issues;

• rural and frontier health care issues;

• population health issues;

• health care quality and safety issues across the spectrum of care;

• public reporting of quality measures;

• health policy and quality measurement;

• patient health needs and priorities;

• clinical fields as necessary for measures under development;

• complex statistical data analysis; and,

• managing large, complex health data sets, claims data, and other data sets necessary for development, maintenance, and analysis

For key personnel and essential staff:

• Describe role, functions and duties with respect to the TO;

• Describe relevant training and experience;

• Specify percent of time in FTEs to be allocated to this project;

• Provide (in appendix) a current resume indicating relevant specific experience and education. Resumes shall be a maximum of two (2) single sided pages each and will not count against the written proposal page limit.

The Offeror shall provide the appropriate level of staff with expertise and credentials to support the needs of CMS and the greatest level of quality performance will be provided under the contract.

NOTE: Key Personnel will be listed in the TO award and cannot be changed unless prior approval is obtained from the Contracting Officer; essential staff are personnel essential to the successful completion of the TO SOW and not listed in the award.

5. Past Performance (Not included in page limit)

a. Definitions:

Relevant – Relevant past performance information is described in FAR 42.1501, General. For the purposes of this solicitation, ‘relevant’ is also past performance information which is similar in size, scope and complexity to this contract.

Significant Subcontractor – A subcontractor performing major or critical aspects of the requirements relevant to the prospective contract. If a subcontractor is performing 25% or more of the work, they are considered Significant.

b. Instructions

The Offeror shall demonstrate satisfactory performance on current and completed contracts within the last three (3) years. Within the last 3 years may mean any contract that has started in the last 3 years or was/is in a continuing status within the last 3 years. It does not refer to any contract that ended more than 3 years prior to the date of submission. This is not a request for a complete listing of contracts. All contracts included as past performance must be related and relevant to the SOW in size and scope. Offerors shall submit information as part of their proposal for both the Offeror and proposed significant subcontractors.

The relevant past performance information shall be supplied in a list format along with a brief summary of the relevance the contract has to the SOW. The contracts, subcontracts and task/purchase orders may be with CMS, other federal government agencies, state agencies, local government and/or commercial firms for the same or similar services required by this solicitation. The list of directly related projects/contracts shall cover at least the last 6 months, but not more than the most recent 3 years.

When providing Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/ Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information:

• Provide the contract number and the period of performance so that a

CPARS/PPIRS record may be located.

When providing non-CPARS/PPIRS information, the Offeror shall provide the following:

• Name of Contracting Activity

• Contract Number and Task Order Number, if applicable

• Contract Type

• Period of Performance

• Total Contract Value

• Brief Contract Description

• Contracting Officer/Contact Person, Address and Telephone

• Program Manager and Telephone

• Key Project Staff

• Information on Problems Encountered and Offeror's Corrective Action (if applicable)

• The Offeror shall identify the methods and outcomes of its evaluation of proposed subcontractors.

The below table should be used when providing a list of the past performance information:

Customer/ Agency

Contract No./ Order No.

POC Total Contract Value

Period of Performance

Descript ion of Services

Relevance Other

Past performance shall include:

• Demonstrated track record with developing and maintaining quality measures that require complex statistical modeling, obtaining consensus endorsement, and implementing the measures in quality programs.

• Demonstrated track record in producing complex data files accurately, resulting in quality measure data viewable by the public.

• Demonstrated track record engaging community stakeholders, including patients, patient advocates, clinical providers, and dialysis providers.

CMS utilizes CPARS and PPIRS for recording and storing all CMS Contractor performance evaluations. CMS will access CPARS and PPIRS for all relevant CMS performance history, if available; however, the Offeror must identify for CMS in its written proposal which CPARS evaluations are being referenced for this solicitation.

CMS may also search on-line databases such as Dun and Bradstreet.

Offerors are reminded that they are responsible for ensuring that accurate information is provided with the reference material, including up-to-date telephone numbers and points of contact.

A joint venture having no past performance history itself may provide references based on the constituent companies. In addition, Offerors having no organizational past performance record may provide references for proposed “key personnel.”

Past Performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and as an evaluation factor when determining best value to the Government.

The Government is not required to contact all references provided by the Offeror.

Also, references other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government to obtain additional information that will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance.

Limit the number of past performance references to six (6) for the prime Offeror and three (3) for each significant subcontractor.

6. Small Business Utilization (Not included in page limit)

The Small Business Utilization section is limited to four (4) pages.

All Offerors shall certify current business size and business type.

Offerors whose size status is “other than small” shall be referred to as a Large Business.

Per the Small Business Association (SBA), “a business concern eligible for assistance as a small business is a business entity organized for profit”; therefore, a non-profit entity is considered a Large Business for the purposes of this solicitation.

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS.

In order to obtain credit under this evaluation factor, Offeror shall address the items below.

a. Specifically list and identify proposed small business (SB) concerns. Provide name of concern, address, point of contact and phone number. Offeror must document that the concern proposed is identified as a SB at www.sam.gov or demonstrate that the concern meets the size standard related to the NAICS Code related to the work being performed by the subcontractor.

b. The extent of an offeror’s commitment to use SB concerns. Commitment should be as specific as possible, i.e. indicate if subcontract arrangements are already in place, letters of commitment, etc. The Offeror must show the extent of firm commitments to use SB concerns, how the concern will be actively involved in tasks awarded under the resulting IDIQ contract over its entire life.

c. Offerors shall document a plan to maximize subcontracting opportunities to small businesses as it relates to meeting subcontracting small business goals.

Offerors shall demonstrate steps taken to ensure small businesses are utilized whenever possible.

When developing a plan, Offerors should strive to achieve the following DHHS small business utilization goals:

Of the total dollars subcontracted, 33% should go to small businesses.

Small Business 33%

A subset of that 33% is as follows:

Small Disadvantaged Business 5% Women-Owned Small Business 5% HubZone Business 3% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% Veteran Owned Small Business 3%

Note: Only use percentages and not dollars when documenting the plan to subcontract. Attachment J.5 does not need to be completed at the TO level.

d. The complexity and variety of the work SBs concerns are to perform. Provide detail on the type of work the SB will be performing.

e. The extent of participation of SB concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition. Targets expressed as dollars or percentage of total contract value for each SB participating will be incorporated into and become part of any resulting contract. Therefore, the extent of participation of all SB concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition must be identified.

f. Ability to effectively manage and monitor subcontractors to include consideration for cost efficiency and cost effectiveness having numerous subcontractors.

g. Offeror shall provide past experience in meeting proposed subcontracting goals along with processes that have been implemented to correct inabilities to meet subcontracting goals will also be evaluated. Past performance in meeting or succeeding SB subcontracting goals shall be demonstrated utilizing copies of eSRS reports. Offerors shall include most recent eSRS reports covering the last three (3) years. The eSRS reports shall include contracts of similar size and scope to this requirement.

7. 508 Compliance (Not included in page limit)

In accordance with the terms of the Provision HHSAR 352.239-73, the Government is seeking to determine Offeror’s ability to adequately address Section 508 accessibility standards. Complete the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) (Attachment J.13) for all relevant sections to this requirement.

8. Appendix (not included in page limit but cannot exceed 35 pages)

The Appendix section is limited to 35 pages. Include all items listed within the solicitation that should be included in the Appendix, i.e. resumes, letters of commitment, milestone chart, etc. Do not include marketing material or superfluous materials.

F. Business Proposal Instructions (Volume II)

Volume II is limited to one hundred (100) pages. Offerors are cautioned that any pages exceeding the page limit will not be reviewed or evaluated.

A written business proposal is required for this TO contract. In order to adequately establish the reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost or price, the Offeror shall support their total cost or price with a functional Microsoft Excel spreadsheet breakdown of costs by SOW task/chapter. The Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price standpoint.

The business proposal shall be prepared for the period of performance identified herein. The business proposal must include supporting narrative documenting how the proposed costs were calculated, including underlying assumptions, rationale, and pricing data.

The Offeror shall submit the following information in its business proposal:

1. Direct Labor: Include all direct labor categories broken out by individuals, to be utilized on the TO. For each labor category please show the “number of labor hours times hourly labor rate equals resultant total dollar amount” by year. Subcontract direct labor shall be shown in the same manner, however, under the subcontract line item. The proposed labor positions must directly track to the Technical Proposal and must be essential to the success of the work. Position titles and salaries should correlate with www.salary.com or other indices. Adequate documentation to support the rates proposed must accompany the cost proposal(s).

2. Fringe Benefits (as appropriate): The Offeror must provide a copy of the most recent indirect cost rate agreement/approved rate letter from its cognizant Federal Agency. The Offeror must state what percentages are being used to calculate the cost. Please provide the fringe benefit calculations applicable to the TO on a separate excel spreadsheet for the prime and all subs that do not have a current indirect cost rate agreement. Provide a detailed breakdown separately for the Prime Offeror and Subcontractors as well as one overall summary table of items and cost. Position titles and salaries should correlate with www.salary.com or other identified source.

3. Subcontracts and Consultants (as appropriate): The Offeror shall include supporting documentation regarding the rationale, methodology and basis for how the proposed costs were developed. In addition, the following subcontract information shall be evaluated:

a. The subcontract agreement which includes, at a minimum:

1) The supplies or services to be subcontracted, i.e., SOW;

2) Identification of the type of subcontract to be used;

3) Proposed subcontract price; and,

4) Flow down of appropriate FAR and prime contract clause from prime Offeror.

b. Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data; as appropriate,

c. Subcontract Negotiation Memorandum reflecting:

1) The principal elements of the subcontract price negotiations;

2) The most significant considerations controlling establishment of initial or revised prices;

3) The reason cost or pricing data were or were not required;

4) The extent, if any, to which the Offeror relied on the subcontractor’s cost or pricing data in determining the price objective and in negotiating the final price;

5) The extent to which it was recognized in the negotiation that the subcontractor’s cost and pricing data were not accurate, complete or current; the action taken by the Offeror and the subcontract; and the effect of any such defective data on the total price negotiated;

6) The reasons for any significant difference between the Offeror’s price objective and the price negotiated;

7) A complete explanation of the incentive fee or profit plan when incentives are used. The explanation shall identify each critical performance element, management decision used to quantify each incentive element, reasons for the incentives, and a summary of all trade-off possibilities considered;

8) Extent to which adequate price competition was obtained, or justification for its absence; and,

9) Statement as to whether the proposed subcontractor is on the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non-procurement Programs.

d. If a cost type subcontract agreement is being proposed, Offeror must submit a copy of the proposed subcontractors indirect rate agreement and proof of a federally approved accounting system.

Note: All proposed subcontractors shall submit a complete cost proposal in the same format as the Offeror’s cost proposal. Subcontractors may submit their business proposal spreadsheet showing the breakdown of costs to CMS in a separately sealed package.

4. Travel: All travel costs proposed shall be reimbursed on a cost reimbursement basis in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). The Offeror shall consolidate travel costs into one line item. However, a separate excel spreadsheet shall be provided for travel cost breakdown, to include number of trips, mileage, per diem, air fare, miscellaneous expense, etc. Individual cost breakdown shall be included for each trip, per traveler. Details shall include travel destinations (to and from). The Offeror shall provide a brief explanation of how travel costs are reimbursed to employees within its organization, i.e. per diem allowance versus submitting receipts, etc.

5. Other Direct Costs (ODCs): These include materials, equipment, etc. The Offeror shall consolidate ODCs into one line item. However, a separate excel spreadsheet shall be provided to breakdown ODCs. The schedule shall provide a detailed itemization of each ODC including per item cost, how the cost was calculated and any supporting documentation such as internet printouts, historical data, quotes or invoices. The Offeror shall also provide rationale for the need for each item of ODC.

6. G&A/Indirect Costs (as appropriate): The Offeror must provide a copy of the most recent indirect cost rate agreement/approved rate letter from its cognizant Federal Agency.

The Offeror shall state the rate being used to calculate the cost. Please provide the G&A/Indirect Costs calculations applicable to the TO on a separate excel spreadsheet.

Offeror must also provide a detailed breakdown separately for the Prime Offeror and Subcontractors if the proposed prime or sub does not have a current indirect cost rate agreement.

7. Leave (as appropriate): The Offeror must provide a copy of the most recent indirect cost rate agreement/approved rate letter from its cognizant Federal Agency. The Offeror shall state the rate being used to calculate the cost. Please provide the leave calculations applicable to the TO on a separate excel spreadsheet. Offeror must also provide a detailed breakdown separately for the Prime Offeror and Subcontractors if the proposed prime or sub does not have a current indirect cost rate agreement.

8. Fee: The Offeror shall provide each fee separately along with the relative percentages on the business proposal spreadsheet.

9. Summary Rollup of All Costs: In addition to the individual contract line item summaries the Offeror shall include a summary sheet inclusive of all costs, FTEs, hours and period of performance in the Excel spreadsheet. A sample of the Summary rollup tab for the Excel spreadsheet is below.

Name of Offeror:

SUMMARY ROLLUP OF ALL COSTS Year 1 Hours

(if applicable) Cost

Direct Labor Leave Fringe Consultants Subcontracts Travel Other Direct Costs Indirect Costs

TOTAL COSTS

Fee

TOTAL COSTS WITH FEE

10. Property: It is DHHS policy that Contractors provide all equipment, materials, facilities, etc., necessary for performance of a contract except for those items defined as government furnished property in the SOW.

11. Offeror’s shall include a statement indicating its’ Representations and Certifications are updated and current in the System for Award Management (SAM), as required in FAR

4.12. The web site for SAM is www.SAM.gov.

12. The offeror must stipulate that their proposal is predicated upon all the terms and conditions of this TORP. In addition, it must contain a statement to the effect that it is firm for a period of at least 90 days from the date of receipt by the Government.

13. Offeror must indicate whether Offeror has the necessary financial capacity, working capital, and other resources to perform the contract without assistance from any outside source. (If not, indicate the amount required and the anticipated source.);

14. If the Government proposes awarding a cost type TO, the offeror must provide proof it has a federally approved accounting system as well as a copy of its most recent approved indirect cost rate agreement from its cognizant Federal Agency. The offeror also must provide the last three years indirect cost rate history for the prime and all proposed subcontractors.

G. Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Proposal Instructions (Volume III) (No Page Limit)

For this TO, Offerors must provide any additional information that differs from the IDIQ Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Proposal already submitted as part of the IDIQ solicitation. If nothing needs to be updated or changed, simply state that and refer back to the IDIQ submission.

In accordance with FAR 9.5, the Government must ensure that an Offeror and its proposed Subcontractor(s) is/are free of all Organizational/Personal Conflict of Interest (hereinafter collectively or individually referred to as COI). The Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Compliance information is so material to the award of this contract that a proposal failing to provide the requirements identified in Attachment J.2, Contractor Business Ethics, Conflicts Of Interest and Compliance Program Requirements, may be ineligible for award.

The Offeror and Subcontractor(s) shall submit Volume III.* Attachment J.2 Contractor Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Compliance Program Requirements and Attachment J.3, Contractor Personal Conflicts of Interest Financial Disclosure Template, contain the proposal submission requirements for Volume III.

The Offeror/Subcontractor(s) must provide adequate substantive detail in order for the Government to conduct an independent analysis of the provided information. Where the Offeror/Subcontractor(s) indicates that no COI exists for a given contract, then for each indication, the Offeror/ Subcontractor(s) shall provide rationale and facts in support of said indication.

*Subcontractor(s): The same information shall be submitted in Volume III, Appendices, for each subcontractor.

H. Task Order Type

The Government intends to award a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) type TO for this effort.

However, the Government reserves the right to award any other type of pricing arrangement.

I. Period of Performance

The period of performance for this TO has a base period of twelve (12) months from date of contract award with four (4) twelve (12) month option periods. The anticipated start date is September 25, 2018.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The evaluation procedures for review of TOs under the MIDS IDIQ shall be in accordance with FAR Subpart 16.505 and in particular 16.505(b)(1), “Fair opportunity”. CMS reserves the right to award based upon initial proposals. The Government will be assessing the proposals by using adjectival ratings.

Award will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by a trade-off technique that allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest cost Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. It permits tradeoffs among cost and non-cost evaluation factors.

Offerors are advised that primary consideration will be given to the technical quality of the proposals in the evaluation process. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The non-cost evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

• Technical Understanding and Approach

• Management Plan and Corporate Capacity

• Key Personnel and Essential Staff

• Past Performance (includes Small Business Utilization)

• 508 Compliance

As the degree of technical equality increases between proposals, cost/price will become more important.

The following criteria will be used in the evaluation of the technical portion of the proposal.

A. Technical Proposal Evaluation

The following technical evaluation criteria will be applied to the technical evaluation of each proposal. The Government will evaluate the factors listed below based on the Offeror’s written Technical Proposal.

1. Technical Understanding and Approach

The Offeror shall make a clear and concise presentation of the technical approach chosen for the proposed TO. This approach should demonstrate an understanding of all aspects of the requirement. The Offeror should provide sufficient detail in the proposal to indicate a technical understanding of, and capability for, performing all aspects of the SOW. Offerors will be evaluated based on their technical approach to areas contained in the SOW including the extent to which the Offeror provides evidence of:

• The evaluation will consider the extent to which the offeror demonstrates understanding of the background, purpose, and goals of the project relative to

CMS quality programs and the Meaningful Measures initiative, including burden reduction and a focus on patient outcomes.

• The evaluation will consider the proposed approach to addressing the distinct needs for developing patient-reported outcomes measures.

• The evaluation will consider the extent to which the Contractor provides a clear understanding of the need for measure and instrument development, endorsement and maintenance, stakeholder input on national priorities and measure selection, as outlined in the IDIQ Task Domains.

• The Contractor must demonstrate specific experience and knowledge of the Consensus Endorsement Entity’s endorsement process and criteria.

• The Contractor must demonstrate knowledge of data sources potentially relevant to the development, maintenance, and implementation of quality measures in the areas of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and ESRD, including, but not limited to Medicare claims, CROWNWeb, and EQRS. Such knowledge should address the data collected by these systems, and any relevant standards applicable to measure data collection.

• The evaluation will consider an approach for supporting instrument and data item development and testing.

• The Contractor must demonstrate knowledge of the Quality Incentive Program, Dialysis Facility Compare, and the DFC Star Ratings methodology.

• The Contractor must demonstrate familiarity with existing ESRD quality measures owned and supported by CMS, and of major methodological issues raised within the community regarding those measures.

• The evaluation will consider proposed environmental scan strategy and conceptual framework strategies.

• The evaluation will consider identification of potential data analysis options, including their strengths, limitations, data sources, and feasibility.

• The evaluation will consider the statistical standards of the Contractor relevant to measure testing, including validation, risk-adjustment, and reliability assessment.

• The evaluation will consider potential measure development and testing barriers, challenges and mitigation plans presented in the proposal.

• The evaluation will consider plans and prior experience in performing field tests and dry runs of quality measures prior to implementation.

• The Contractor must present an approach to engaging stakeholders and providers to partner for the collection of data for the purpose of alpha- and beta-testing quality measures.

• The Contractor must demonstrate a track record of selecting, convening and leading measure development TEPs.

• The Contractor must demonstrate strategies for communication, collaboration, and coordination of components internal and external to CMS, other contractors, and stakeholders.

• The evaluation will consider a plan for accessing data required to support development and maintenance of ESRD quality measures.

• The evaluation will consider approaches for producing measures for quality reporting beginning with the April 2019 DFC Refresh.

• The evaluation will consider approaches for assuming responsibility for ongoing measure maintenance, development and consensus endorsement efforts at the start of the performance period.

• The evaluation will consider approaches transitioning responsibility for existing work processes and deliverables.

• The Contractor must demonstrate an understanding and strategy for completion of each deliverable described by the SOW and SOD.

• The evaluation will consider approaches and past experience for implementing changes to existing data collection systems to support quality measure implementation.

• The evaluation will consider approaches to measure data file production and quality assurance.

• The evaluation will consider approaches to the application of LEAN (or alternative) methodologies to continuous improvement for the project.

• The evaluation will consider approaches to documentation of measure specifications and production algorithms to support implementation in CMS quality programs.

2. Management Plan And Corporate Capacity

CMS will review the Offeror’s capability to execute the project effectively, including access to requisite resources including staff, expert consultants, computers and technical equipment. CMS will review the work plan for specificity, nature of the responsibility, and authorities of key personnel and the extent to which the plan is comprehensive, specific and feasible. The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the TO requirements and ability to demonstrate that the Offeror has a plan for completing these requirements in a timely and high quality manner.

Other criteria relative to the Project Management Plan and project timeline include:

• Does the Offeror have a justifiable and appropriate work plan that supports the needs of CMS and HHS?

• Does the Offeror have a process to develop timelines to communicate and take into account (relative to both effort and budget) adequate time for CMS advance review and clearance, legislative review and clearance and other key milestones?

• Does the Offeror have in depth and successful experience in developing, endorsing and maintaining performance measures and convening multi-stakeholder groups?

• Does the Offeror have a process for developing a comprehensive plan for management of the contract’s resources and coordinating with the Government Task Lead, including primary points of contact, regular status updates, and updating the work plan regularly?

Offeror will be evaluated on their plan for completing public reporting of ESRD quality measures.

3. Key Personnel And Essential Staff

The evaluation of personnel shall consider key personnel and essential staff who are competent and experienced in the skills required in the SOW. The caliber of key personnel shall be based upon the individual’s past performance on similar efforts, academic qualifications, and relevant training. This evaluation shall consider any proposed subcontractors and their experiences.

The evaluation will assess the proposed Key Personnel and essential staff’s relevant experience and qualifications for conducting the work described in the TO SOW, including their expertise, education, experience, qualifications and training. The following will be evaluated.

• Project team resumes/curricula vitae, per key staff member or consultant: Does the Offeror have the appropriate level of staff to support CMS’ needs?

• If so, are the personnel appropriately credentialed to provide the greatest level of quality performance under this contract?

• Does the Offeror have experience in developing, endorsing and maintaining performance measures and convening multi-stakeholder groups?

• Is the Offeror familiar with CMS quality programs and their implementations?

• Does the Offeror provide sufficient manpower to support project management needs?

• Do the key personnel have experience with clinical quality measurement as well as expertise in a broad spectrum of issues-o urban health care issues;

o safety net health care issues;

o rural and frontier health care issues;

o population health issues;

o health care quality and safety issues across the spectrum of care;

o public reporting of quality measures;

o health policy and quality measurement;

o patient health needs and priorities;

o clinical fields as necessary for measures under development;

o complex statistical data analysis; and, o managing large, complex health data sets, claims data, and other data sets necessary for development, maintenance, and analysis

4. Past Performance

The Offeror will be evaluated on its past performance history. This should not be misconstrued as corporate experience. The Government’s evaluation will be a subjective assessment based on the past performance information obtained. The evaluation of past performance will be based on the Offeror’s demonstrated ability, under contracts of a similar nature, scope, and complexity, to successfully meet the requirements of the TO SOW. The Government will also search on-line databases such as Dun and Bradstreet and PPIRS.

Offeror will be evaluated on track record with developing quality measures that require complex statistical modeling, obtaining consensus endorsement, and implementing the measures in quality programs. Offeror will also be evaluated on a demonstrated track record in producing complex data files accurately, resulting in quality measure data viewable by the public. Offeror will also be evaluated on a demonstrated track record engaging community stakeholders, including patients, patient advocates, clinical providers, and dialysis providers.

CMS may utilize information contained in CPARS or otherwise obtained from sources inside or outside of CMS. An Offeror that states it has no past performance history will neither be favorably nor unfavorably rated in regards to past performance.

Small Business Utilization

CMS is committed to assuring that maximum practicable opportunity is provided to SB concerns to participate in the performance of this contract. CMS will evaluate Offerors on their plan to maximize subcontracting opportunities to small businesses as it relates to meeting the SB subcontracting goals. CMS will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in meeting small business subcontracting goals. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has demonstrated a commitment to use SB concerns for the work that it intends to perform as the prime Contractor.