Attachment D - Evaluation Instructions and Criteria.pdf

Attachment D – Evaluation Instructions and Criteria

1.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 STEP ONE (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS

Quoters shall provide only a Yes or No response to the following questions. Please restate the questions below verbatim in your written response and respond with either a yes or no.

1. Is the quote submitted in response to this RFQ for a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Electronic Health Record software solution that can be installed in an on-premises environment?

2. Can your team support a virtual assist implementation as outlined in PWS sections 2.2, 3.0, and section 7 Figure 5?

Quoters responding “No” to either of these questions, will be eliminated from this competition and the quote will not be further evaluated.

1.2 STEP TWO (2) – TRADE-OFF

The Step Two Trade-Off evaluation consists of the following factors and subfactors:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Virtual Real-Time Demonstration

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

For each of the functions below, the Quoter shall provide a written technical approach with supporting rationale which details how the Quoter plans to execute the function, explain all assumptions used, include references to the appropriate section of the PWS, discuss any risks associated with the technical approach, and provide sufficient information to fully demonstrate understanding of the requirements.

Function 1: Interface Support Function

1) Provide information on your proposed interface solution, specify whether the interface solution is native to your EHR product or if it is from a third party. Also discuss how this supports the interface needs outlined within the PWS.

2) NASA’s current EHR interfaces with PACS that supports the devices listed below. Explain how your proposed EHR interface solution is able to maintain or replicate these existing connections and specify if it is device/brand agnostic.

a. Care Stream DRX-1K5484-7092

b. GE LOGIQ E10

c. GE MAC VU360

d. Hologic Discovery W model 49368

e. Hologic Horizon A 100183

3) Explain how your proposed EHR software solution supports HL7 bidirectional data exchange and web services integration using the CDC’s Web Services Description Language (WSDL) with "ImmTrac2," the Texas Immunization Registry managed by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

Function 2: Multifactor Authentication Describe how your EHR software product manages Single Sign On capabilities. Include information on OAuth, OpenID Connect (OIDC), SAML, and any available support for the utilization of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards and RSA tokens.

Function 3: Technical Specifications Provide the recommended hardware requirements for your proposed EHR software solution.

Also, explain how your proposed EHR software solution will operate on the hardware identified in section 2.2 of the PWS and state whether it can or cannot operate on this hardware.

Function 4: Overall Data Compartmentalization Explain the overall data compartmentalization capabilities of your proposed EHR software solution and how it aligns with the Government’s needs as described in PWS sections 2.1.4, 3.1.6, and 3.1.7.

Function 5: Implementation Plan Provide a detailed written technical approach with supporting rationale and assumptions to execute software implementation using the virtual assist method as outlined in the PWS. Please explain how your company will meet the July 7, 2026 system launch/go-live deadline. Also, explain your training approach and provide a list of key points of contact planned for the project, including title and role.

SUBFACTOR 2: VIRTUAL REAL-TIME DEMONSTRATION

The Quoter shall provide a real-time virtual demonstration that reflects a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required, addressing each element of the attached demonstration script (see RFQ Attachment B). The demonstration shall not exceed 2 hours in duration. Government will allot an additional amount of time not to exceed 30 minutes at the end of the demo to ask the Quoter questions on an as needed basis only.

The Quoter shall invite appropriate technical subject matter experts to present the information requested in the demo scripts.

Pre-recorded videotaped presentations are not allowed.

It is anticipated that demos will be held the week after quotes are due. The Contracting Officer will assign a timeslot based on the order in which quotes are received. Please plan to be available during this time. The Government will consider requests to reschedule on a limited basis.

Quoters shall submit reference information for up to three (3) customers using your software product. References from customers with projects of a similar nature, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this RFQ are preferred but not required.

The following information shall be included for each reference provided:

(1) Name of the company using your product

(2) Company point of contact (POC) name, phone number, and email address

(3) Contract/Order number

(4) Contract type

(5) Contract value

(6) A detailed summary of the work performed and how the project is similar in nature, scope, and complexity to this RFQ.

NOTE: Quoters should notify the POCs that they may be contacted directly by a Government representative because their name was submitted as a reference for this RFQ.

Quoters shall submit one price quotation for the execution of this requirement using the template attached to this RFQ labeled Attachment C – Pricing Sheet. The implementation and software license prices quoted shall be inclusive of all labor, materials, travel, and equipment to successfully perform the requirements of this Purchase Order.

Quoters shall also submit a detailed pricing sheet broken out by base year and all option years.

Quoters shall also provide a detailed narrative explanation of the pricing answering at a minimum the following questions:

1. Is the proposed pricing based on concurrent user counts, total number of providers, total number of users, or a different factor? (Information on NASA users is listed in PWS section 3.0)

2. Explain what is included in your implementation support costs.

3. Are maintenance support costs included in the cost of the software license? Explain what is included in your maintenance support.

4. How do you charge for on call support in options years 1-4?

5. What modules/capabilities are included in the price?

6. If the proposed interface engine is third party, is the license included in the price?

7. What is the Quoter’s proposed on-site support that is included in the price (e.g. any necessary in-person training or in-person support during go live, including number of people, duration, rationale, and price)? (See PWS Sections 3.1.4.1.1, 3.1.8, and 5.0)

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will make a single award to the responsible Quoter whose quote offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 - Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures, and FAR Subpart 13.5 – Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Quoters are advised that the lowest priced quote meeting the requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Quoter is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced quote must merit the additional price. The mentioned regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far.

The Government intends to evaluate and award a single contract without discussions with Quoters. Therefore, the Quoter's initial quote should contain the Quoter's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

This procurement will be evaluated using a two-step process as detailed below.

2.1 Step One (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS

Quoters will first be evaluated for their responses to the questions in Step One (1) – Meeting Key RFQ Requirements. Each response to the questions in Step One (1) will be individually rated as either:

Meets: An answer of “Yes”

Does Not Meet: An answer of “No”

Quoters with any response rated as Does Not Meet under Step One (1) will be eliminated from this competition and their quote will not be further evaluated.

Quoters with responses rated as Meets in Step One (1), will then have their quote further evaluated using the factors listed in Step Two (2) – Trade-off.

2.2 Step Two (2) – TRADE-OFF

The trade-off factors below are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Acceptability is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price.

Technical Acceptability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Quoter’s Technical and Past Performance quotes.

All Quoters will be evaluated for compliance with the RFQ requirements.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Technical Acceptability will be evaluated for the Quoter’s demonstrated approach and understanding of the requirements with supporting rationale using the table below. Overall demonstrated understanding will include a review for reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and risk to the Government. Technical Acceptability will be assigned one overall rating of “Outstanding”, “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable” based on the evaluation of all elements collectively. Elements will not be rated individually.

Technical Acceptability will also be evaluated for consistency with the Price of the quote. The Government will evaluate the resources proposed in the Technical submission for consistency with the resources proposed in the Price submission. This consistency evaluation is distinct from the Price evaluation. A lack of consistency between Technical Approach and Price may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of “demonstration of understanding” under Technical Acceptability. Therefore, it is possible to receive an Unacceptable rating for Technical Acceptability if the Technical Acceptability submission is not consistent with Price submission.

Adjectival Rating Description Outstanding Quote indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Risks have a very low potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Acceptable Quote indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Risks have a low potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Unacceptable Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risks have a high potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Past performance will be rated as Acceptable, Neutral, or Unacceptable using the table below.

The Government will award a Purchase Order resulting from this RFQ to the Quoters with

Acceptable or Neutral past performance. Acceptable past performance ratings are more advantageous to the Government than Neutral past performance ratings.

Only one rating will be assigned. Individual elements are not rated.

In addition to the information provided by the Quoter and its references, the Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to performance using other sources of information such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other sources known to the Government.

Performance Rating Description

Acceptable The Government has a reasonable expectation that the Quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Quoters without a past performance record or for whom past performance information is so sparse that no meaningful evaluation rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a Neutral rating.

Unacceptable The Government has no reasonable expectation that the Quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The Quoter’s technical submission will be evaluated for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. Reasonableness will be determined utilizing various price analysis techniques of the total evaluated price (TEP) and the Quoter’s detailed pricing sheet.

The Government will evaluate the TEP and the Quoter’s detailed pricing sheet. The TEP is the sum of the CLINS for the entire five-year period. Evaluation of option period prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The price evaluation will determine price reasonableness, the presence of unbalanced pricing, and completeness.

Price Reasonableness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. For the price to be fair and reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Quoter's total proposed price utilizing the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b). An offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.

Unbalanced Pricing. Quoters are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government will evaluate for the presence of unbalanced pricing by comparing Year One (1) against Year Two (2) through Year Five (5) to determine whether the price is significantly over or understated. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2(b), the Government may determine that a quote is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Additionally, an offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Completeness. An Quoter's price proposal is complete when the Quoter's proposed price and other information adheres to the requirements of the RFQ for STEP TWO (2) – TRADE-OFF, FACTOR 3: PRICE.