SECTION M_revised.docx

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government expects to make multiple awards to those offerors whose proposals contain the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The Government shall evaluate proposals and shall consider all evaluation factors and shall make an award decision based upon striking the most advantageous balance between technical/management features and cost/price to the Government. In determining overall best value in ranking the proposals, the Government will also consider factors such as geographic diversity, demographics of population being served, and settings (i.e. rural versus urban settings). This list is not all inclusive, but factors such as these will be considered by the Contracting Officer in making a final best value decision. Inasmuch, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or management features.

The Government will evaluate each proposal and identify strengths, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in each submission. A strength is deemed to be when the offeror provides something of a nature that goes beyond the basic requirements and provides additional value to the Government; it reflects a proposal whereby the offeror does more than simply parrot back that it will meet the Section C requirements. A significant weakness is that which raises a risk of failure of the entire effort; for example, not having adequate staff to work on the design or not having the appropriate level of staff may be deemed a significant weakness. A deficiency is a missing element in the proposal and a demonstration that the offeror did not understand and therefore could not address the requirement.

Upon completion of the identification of strengths, significant weaknesses and deficiencies and after assessment of past performance and price, the proposals will be ranked in terms of those which represent the highest potential for success to those which represent risks so great that success is not achievable based upon consideration of all the factors being evaluated, including diversity, demographic variation, and settings.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS (in descending order of importance)

The following evaluation factors are applicable for both the base and option period.

Technical Capability, including but not limited to the following elements in order of importance: (NOTE: Go-No-Go capability reviews will be evaluated first. If an offeror meets the capability critera, the proposal will move on to the technical evaluation process noted below. If not, the offeror’s submission will not move on to further consideration and will not be eligible for award).

Technical Approach Design and Implementation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the overall effort, challenges and obstacles through the offeror’s proposed implementation plan and strategy for hospital engagement contractor efforts in the area of the PFP. Offerors are advised to be specific in sharing the skill mix of personnel involved in the plan, timelines in relation to the various activities under the plan, and the manner in which the offeror will be able to meet the requirements of the SOW through its plan (e.g., webinars, face-to-face conferences, incentives for hospital participation…) The Government will evaluate any security plans provided per (H.8), if the vendor does not have a need to submit one, none will be evaluated.

Management and Capacity:

The government will evaluate the offerors proposed management plan, to ensure it demonstrates the offers ability to manage the entire effort.

Key Personnel and Staff:

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed personnel to be engaged in accomplishing the requirements of the SOW. The evaluation will include consideration of the types of personnel to be provided by the contractor (skill mix), and any key personnel and subcontractors proposed by the offeror.

Past Performance:

The Government is mandated to evaluate offerors’ past accomplishments in efforts of a related size and scope to this requirement. This evaluation includes review of all past performance information made available to the government, but does not require the government to confirm all references. Past performance includes a check of subcontractors proposed as well. The evaluation is used to assess the risk of an offeror not being successful as a result of not having performed like work in the past.

Price:

The Government will assess the realistic nature of the proposed price and any information submitted in response to the business proposal in order to determine a fair and reasonable price.

M.3. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS/COMPETITIVE RANGE

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; however, should the government determine that negotiations are necessary, and then a competitive range will be established. Only those most highly rated proposals will be considered for the competitive range and, as such, will be invited into discussions with an opportunity to submit a final revised proposal. It must be noted that the Government considers that efficient competition can be maintained if the number of proposals in the competitive range for the award does not exceed a reasonable expectation for a timely award, therefore, pursuant to the rights afforded to the Contracting Officer per FAR 15.306(c)(2); the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.4. Evaluation Panel/Proposal Distribution

The Government would like to make it known, that due to the expected high number of proposals and short time frame, each proposal will be assigned to 1 of 10 evaluation panels for review. The members of each evaluation panel will only be responsible for reviewing proposals assigned to their specific evaluation panel. There will be no process other than first in first out to consider.

M-2