Office of Quality SSP Online Training Courses.pdf

Office of Quality Quality Improvement Online Training Courses and Technical Assistance

75H70420Q00006

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 requirement in accordance with the Scope of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall:

1. Demonstrate skills and ability to provide the functions of online training and quality improvement courses in an online educational community to teach and build core skills in quality improvement, patient safety, and leadership.

2. Demonstrate skills and ability to provide the technical functions of online courses in a self-paced format in 15 to 40 minute lessons teaching essential quality improvement concepts.

3. Demonstrate experience in providing a subscription format for online courses for learners to register and enroll in course at various professional levels and that is self-paced.

4. Demonstrate skills and ability to provide the technical functions of online courses including log on, passcode and registration functions for participants to enroll in courses on demand.

5. Demonstrate skills and ability to provide solutions to technical or enrollment issues through responsive, timely, and professional customer service/technical assistance skills and the ability to effectively communicate general information, instructions, analyses, and solutions in written and oral communication.

6. Demonstrate experience in providing courses that use short videos, case studies, games, and project-based learning opportunities.

7. Demonstrate capability to provide basic certificates in Quality and Safety and other quality improvement training.

8. Demonstrate capability to provide CEU’s from nationally recognized accreditation health organizations in an online mechanism for clinical staff, nurses, physicians and pharmacists to obtain credit in an accredited program designed for professionals with certificates or licenses to practice various medical and related professions.

9. Demonstrate experience in providing a community learning environment that establishes a network of learners and educators to individuals from other professions and health systems.

10. Demonstrate the knowledge, skills and abilities required to provide quarterly reports that track usage of the courses participants have enrolled in.

11. Demonstrate the knowledge, skills and abilities required to provide a detailed report to enrollees about their activity: courses completed, assessment scores, continuing education credits earned. Enrollees/attendees should be able to query this information through the online educational community/platform.

12. Demonstrate ability to ensure that available workshop training formats and online courses meet Section 508 standards. See the Terms and Conditions for applicable Section 508 standards. Any proposals that include offerings covered by Section 508 that are non-compliant with the applicable standards shall be clearly indicated as so.

13. Demonstrate ability to provide at least ten (10) modules/courses upon initiation of the Period of Performance. This shall include at least three (3) for Quality Improvement, and at least three (3) for Patient Safety.

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 Scope of Work. The Technical Capability Factor will be adjectivally scored. Adjectival rating used to score the Technical Capability factors 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 result, weaknesses not offset by strengths to not detract from the Offerors response.

NOT CAPABLE A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would

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. Preference will be given to Offerors with knowledge of the Indian Health Service healthcare system.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine whether it is relevant to the SOW of this procurement. Consideration will be given to: overall contract performance, contract type, contract size, and type of services provided. The Government will evaluate the information provided, questionnaire submitted, and 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

VERY HIGH

LEVEL OF

CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist. No significant weaknesses exist.)

HIGH LEVEL

OF

CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Expected to accomplish contract requirements in a timely, efficient, and economical manner. Only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (One or more significant strengths exist.

Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

MODERATE LEVEL

OF CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; and fully responsive to contract requirements. Reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. ** (There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both.)

LOW LEVEL

OF

CONFIDENCE

Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition. Performance meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards, producing adequate results. Reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements. ** (One or more weaknesses exist. Weaknesses outbalance strengths.)

VERY LOW LEVEL

OF CONFIDENCE

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.

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 Office of Quality Contracting Officer’s Representative will evaluate the quotations.

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. 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.

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 SOW will be awarded the contract.