Attachment 1 - NPD Instructions to Offerors.pdf

Solicitation # 75FCMC26R0063 National Provider Directory (NPD) Data Sourcing, Aggregation, and Quality Assurance Services Instructions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1. This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any cost for the preparation or submission of the quotation. This solicitation is not a contract nor a promise to contract in the future.

2. This procurement is subject to the future availability of funds.

3. The response should be prepared in a format capable of being viewed using Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.

4. Digital submissions should be formatted for print using letter-sized (8-1/2 X 11”) pages, single-spaced, with one inch (1”) margins.

5. This solicitation may limit the number of pages associated with a given element of the offerors’ response. Within that context, one page equals one side of a sheet of paper. Use of landscape layout for certain pages when appropriate is acceptable and counts as one page.

Number the pages consecutively. Any pages in excess of any page limitations cited herein will not be considered. Any page limitations set forth herein do not include any “front matter” information such as a cover letter, table of contents, and definitions or acronyms. Any technical or pricing information submitted within the “front matter” will not be considered.

6. Responses should be 12-point font size. Smaller font not less than nine (9) point font size and single spacing is acceptable for any tables, graphics, illustrations, headers, and footers;

however, offerors should not submit an abundance of information in chart format.

7. Tables used throughout the narrative portions of the response should be formatted in such a way as to allow for the search and find functions in MS Office and Adobe Acrobat to discover text embedded in such tables. Offerors should avoid pasting images of such tables into the response, as the government wants to avoid situations where the search and find functions are not effective because words or numbers are embedded in the response as pictures/images rather than text.

8. If sending electronic mail, CMS recommends keeping attachment size below 25MB to reduce risk of the e-mail not being delivered.

9. If a Contractor Teaming Agreement (CTA) is being proposed, the proposal should indicate this is the case and identify all team members. Proposals must be consistent from the first phase to the last regarding identified CTA arrangements. The negotiation of CTAs will not involve the Government and are the responsibility of the offerors. The terms of any CTA must provide that the offeror providing the proposal will be identified as the contractor, such that the FPDS-NG record created for the contract reflects the offeror providing the proposal as the contractor. Furthermore, CMS will make payment only to the contractor identified on the contract; any further distribution of payment between teammates is the responsibility of the offeror identified in the contract. The contractor identified on the contract must be the CTA teammate expected to realize the most revenue under the contract, based on the data included in the cost/price volume. CMS will not evaluate or consider for award any quote submitted by a business that does not possess the cited business size / socio-economic status. If a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) is proposed, all contractors must have this business size / socio-economic status.

SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS

All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted via electronic mail (e-mail) no later than 12:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) on 03 August 2026, to the Ordering Agency POC noted above. Questions received after this date and time may not be answered prior to the closing date/time for receipt of responses. For each question, please include a reference to the specific section(s) of the RFP to which the question applies following the format below (i.e., the format below assumes a table with columns associated with each element). Contractors should use a file format that will facilitate CMS merging questions from multiple offerors into a single file. At its unilateral discretion, CMS may elect not to answer one (1) or more questions or to conduct one

(1) or more live question-and-answer sessions. The questions and any CMS response thereto may be shared with all contract holders on a non-attribution basis as to the name of the contractor that asked the question. In the event of any conflict between an answer provided by CMS and the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as amended, the solicitation will control.

In the event this solicitation includes more than one (1) phase, offerors have the opportunity to ask questions regarding each phase subsequent to the first. Any such questions are due no later than 12:00 pm ET on the third business day following distribution of the Contracting Officer's notification.

Question Number SOO/RFP Section and/or

Page Number Question

(for Offeror use) Response

(for CMS use)

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSAL DUE DATE

Submit your proposal in accordance with the following format requirements to assist the Government in making a complete and thorough evaluation of the proposal.

Phase One proposals must be submitted via email to Contract Specialist, Walker Hare, at walker.t.hare@cms.hhs.gov and cc: Contracting Officer, Alex Jarema, at alex.jarema@cms.hhs.gov on or before the RFP closing date of 08/12/2026, at 12:00 p.m.

Eastern Time. Offerors must cite their Unique Entity ID (UEI) and SAM EIN numbers in the proposal submission.

The anticipated Phase Two Proposal submission date is 08/28/2026. All Phase Two proposal documentation shall be provided via email to Contract Specialist, Walker Hare, at walker.t.hare@cms.hhs.gov and cc: Contracting Officer, Alex Jarema, at alex.jarema@cms.hhs.gov

Responses sent through other means will not be considered. Responses that are late will not be considered. If an offeror is late submitting any portion of the proposal, the entire response will be considered late. The offeror’s initial submission should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint, as applicable to the procurement.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD – GENERAL PROCEDURES

A. The Government will evaluate proposals using a tradeoff process to determine which offerors represent the Best Value to the Government, as defined in FAR 2.101 and described in FAR 52.212-2. The Government may award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than the proposal assessed the most non-price merit. The relative importance considering all evaluation factors is provided as follows: all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

B. The Government estimates one (1) single award to be made under this solicitation. This estimate in no way prohibits the Government from making either fewer or more awards than estimated based upon the offers received and a determination of the best interests of the Government.

C. The Government may award without discussions with Offerors in accordance with FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offerors’ best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD – EVALUATION PROCESS

In addition to price, the following factors will be considered when determining best value: Factor 1: Corporate Experience (Mission Focused), Factor 2: Performance Work Statement (PWS) & Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), and Factor 3: Oral Presentations (Interview Style). For these factors, the Government will assess a confidence level (e.g., high, some, or low confidence) that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention. These non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance.

In addition, CMS will evaluate Conflict of Interest (COI) and 508 VPAT submissions for compliance and acceptability for the apparent successful offeror. The evaluation of the COI and 508 Volume will not be considered in terms of best value.

Proposal submission and CMS’ evaluation thereof will occur in two phases, as follows:

Two-Phase: Proposals will be submitted and evaluated in phases. The intent of the two-phase procurement is to minimize proposal development and presentation costs for those offerors with little or no chance of receiving an award, as well as to minimize evaluation time and effort on the agency’s part. In between each phase, CMS will make an advisory down-select and notify each offeror of CMS’s determination of whether the offeror should participate in the next phase. The Government will determine the appropriate number of offerors that is most beneficial to the Government for each phase following the first. For those who are encouraged to participate, CMS will provide further instructions for proposal submission. For those who are not recommended to continue to Phase 2, CMS discourages further participation in the RFP process because such an offeror is unlikely to be a viable competitor for award. However, offerors who are advised not to continue may still participate in the next phase if they elect to do

so. Any such offeror is required to opt-in to the next phase by notifying the CO and CS via e-mail of their intent. Opt-in notifications must be received no later than 4:00 pm ET on the second (2nd) business day following the agency’s advisory notice, at which time CMS will contact the offeror to provide further instructions for proposal submission.

The submission of proposals and CMS’s evaluation thereof will occur as follows:

Phase 1 includes evaluation of the following factor(s): Corporate Experience (Mission Focused).

Phase 2 includes the evaluation of the following factor(s): PWS & QASP, Oral Presentation (Interview Style), and Price. Section 508, and Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest (COI), and Compliance will be prepared and evaluated in this phase.

Phase One (1)

1. Corporate Experience (Mission Focused) (Factor One)

How to prepare this portion of the proposal:

Offerors must submit a narrative which demonstrates recent performance of work similar to that needed to meet the Government's intent as described in this solicitation. This submission is limited to six (6) pages in total length. Artifacts are not included in the page count. The narrative should be pertinent and specific, illustrating the depth and breadth of experience within each focus area specified below, with references to the particular project(s) from which the experience was gained.

"Recent" means a contract whose period of performance is currently on-going or, if finished, ended within the last five years of the date of proposal submission. Recent experience may be evaluated more favorably.

Experience may include those contracts entered into with the U.S. Federal, State, or Local Government agencies, or commercial customers.

Corporate Experience may draw upon the experience of the proposed team, including significant subcontractors. Proposals must clearly identify whose experience is being cited and that firm's proposed role on this contract. The Government will consider the source of the experience and whether that same entity will perform the related work under this contract. Proposals where critical experience is fragmented across multiple firms or where the entity citing the experience will not be performing that work may be evaluated at lower confidence.

Proposals should include the following information as it pertains to the sources of experience cited in each narrative:

1. Client organization name and point of contact information

2. Contract Number

3. Period of Performance

4. Explain whose experience is being proposed and the role of that firm in performance of the work envisioned under this solicitation

Experience Focus Areas

1. Focus Area 1 — Data Source Access and License-Free Output Capability

Submit a narrative demonstrating your organization's existing, active data licensing relationships with authoritative provider data sources and your experience negotiating license-free redistribution rights. Both artifacts must be associated with the same project or closely related portfolio of engagements. For teaming arrangements, the entity responsible for WA A performance should submit this narrative.

Artifact 1 — Data Source Agreement Portfolio

Provide documentation of your current data source relationships across the six required dataset categories listed below. Acceptable formats include agreement summaries, licensing compliance registers, data dictionaries, or equivalent documentation. Redact commercially sensitive pricing terms but do not redact source organization names, data categories covered, geographic scope, or redistribution rights status.

For each of the six required datasets, document your current status using one of the following tiers. A mix of tiers across categories is acceptable and expected — document the strongest available evidence for each category.

Tier 1 — Existing Active Agreement: Provide documentation of a current, active data licensing agreement with the authoritative source for this category.

The documentation must show: source organization name; data categories and fields covered; geographic scope (number of states and jurisdictions); current agreement status; and whether the agreement is compatible with or can be modified to support federal redistribution of derived NPD data without downstream licensing obligations on end users.

Tier 2 — Existing Relationship, Pre-Award Formalization Planned: If you do not have a signed agreement but have an existing direct relationship with the authoritative source, document: (a) the nature of the existing relationship — prior commercial agreement, active negotiation, letter of intent, or equivalent; (b) specific pre-award activities your organization will complete before award to be ready to execute within 30 days of CMS onboarding completion; and (c) the name, title, and contact information of a point of contact at the source organization who can confirm the relationship. CMS may contact referenced individuals as part of the evaluation process. Tier 2 responses that cannot provide a named, contactable source organization POC will be evaluated as Tier 3.

Tier 3 — No Existing Relationship: If you have no existing relationship with the authoritative source for a required category, briefly describe your proposed approach to establishing an agreement post-award.

Required Dataset Coverage — Respond to Each Dataset Separately:

For each dataset, in addition to documenting your tier status, indicate:

(a) Whether you ARE the authoritative source for this data, whether you HAVE an active agreement with the authoritative source, or both;

(b) Whether federal government use is permitted under your current agreement or relationship;

(c) Whether CMS can freely redistribute derived data in a public directory without downstream licensing obligations — and if not, what redistribution approach is achievable (derived indicator, field-level publication, partial redistribution, or other);

(d) Whether any fields in this data category contain sensitive or restricted information that CMS could use internally but could not publish publicly; and,

(e) A sample data dictionary identifying key fields available, their format, update cadence, and any known field-level restrictions.

# Required Dataset Known Authoritative Source(s)*

Clinician licensure — national physician/osteopathic

Each State Medical Board maintains the medical license status for their state's clinicians. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is one aggregation source for this data, but the underlying license data are generally covered by various Freedom of Information laws, and represent open datasets.

Clinician licensure — supplemental state boards (non- FSMB covered provider types and jurisdictions)

In some states there are more than one medical licensing board that cover different types of clinicians.

Board certification — physicians

(MD, DO)

There are dozens of medical specialty boards that maintain the certification status of different types of physicians. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) is one aggregator of this data.

Provider network participation data

Each payer maintains multiple internal data sources that model out their provider participation network.

There are multiple regulations that require different types of payers to publish a machine readable (usually FHIR) based provider directory containing their data.

5 Pharmacy identification

The National Council for Prescription Drug Programs (NCPDP) is the authoritative source of pharmacy identifiers, and also maintains accurate metadata on pharmacies such as address and associated pharmacists

6 Hospital/facility data

The American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey is coded by CMS Certification Number (CCN) and contains multiple data points on hospital facilities.

These include details on resources, bed counts, specific personnel, system affiliation as well as the web-addresses of the hospitals.

* Known Authoritative Source(s)" identifies the primary or most commonly used source(s) for each data category based on CMS market research. CMS is not prescribing a specific source and recognizes that alternative sources, aggregators, or combinations of sources may provide equivalent or superior coverage, accuracy, or cost-effectiveness. Offerors are encouraged to propose the sourcing approach — including any alternative or supplemental sources — that best achieves the Government's objectives of comprehensive coverage, high accuracy, and license-free redistribution. CMS's long-term interest is in a contractor who continuously evaluates the market for the optimal combination of price, coverage, and accuracy across all required data categories, leaning primarily into authoritative primary sources but not limited to those identified here.

Supplemental Dataset Coverage:

For each supplemental dataset below, briefly indicate whether you have existing agreements, the redistribution rights status, and your proposed approach. Offerors are not required to have existing agreements for supplemental datasets but must describe their approach to establishing them post-award if proposing to include them.

# Supplemental Dataset Authoritative Source

7 Credentialing platform data

DataSpring (formerly the Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare) maintains a formalized relationship with many state-level credentialing bodies. Their dataset is comprehensive and has been incorporated, in many cases into state-level regulations.

8 Organizational accreditation Organizations can have credentials such as "Level 1 Trauma Center", etc.

9 Payer/health plan data

There are multiple different sources for these accreditations which have lots of different focus, including quality, patient safety and specific clinical capabilities. (e.g., The Joint Commission, National Committee for Quality Assurance)

Board certification — non-physician provider types

NAIC maintains some payer data, as do state-level Medicaid agencies and other government and non-government industry organizations.

Additional data sources proposed by offeror

There are dozens of medical specialty boards that maintain the certification status of different types of non-physicians clinicians. (e.g., American Board of Podiatric Surgery, American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists, National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants, American Association of Nurse Credentialing Center, and American Association of Nurse Practitioners Certification Board)

Artifact 2 — License-Free Output Negotiation Evidence

Provide documentation of a specific completed negotiation in which redistribution-compatible terms were secured with an authoritative data source.

Acceptable formats include a redacted agreement excerpt, a licensing compliance summary, a field-level publication eligibility classification, or equivalent documentation demonstrating the outcome of the negotiation. The documentation must show:

The source organization type (state licensing board, board certification organization, credentialing platform, commercial aggregator, or other);

The specific licensing restriction encountered;

How the restriction was resolved and what the outcome was;

The nature of the redistribution rights secured — derived indicator, field-level publication, partial redistribution, bulk redistribution, or other; and, Whether any fields within the dataset could not be publicly published even after successful negotiation, and how the distinction between publishable and non-publishable fields was handled.

If full license-free redistribution was not achievable but partial redistribution was negotiated, document how restricted fields were identified and how they are technically prevented from appearing in public output.

Artifacts may include blurred or redacted elements to protect PII, PHI, or proprietary details.

2. Focus Area 2 — Production-Scale Data Quality Improvement for Provider or Healthcare Data

Submit a narrative demonstrating production-scale data quality improvement for provider or healthcare data, including evidence of how quality findings fed back to improve upstream data sourcing or pipeline decisions. Provide documentation of measurable data quality improvement outcomes from a production deployment (not a proof-of-concept or pilot). Acceptable formats include a quality improvement report, correction acceptance rate dashboard or summary, before/after accuracy comparison, QASP performance report, or equivalent. The documentation must show: starting baseline accuracy; types of errors corrected;

quantified outcome (correction acceptance rates, reduction in known error patterns, increase in high-confidence records, or comparable metrics); scale (number of provider records); and methodology used, including whether AI/ML tools were employed and whether the methodology can be fully documented in a format that CMS can review, audit, and own.

3. Focus Area 3 — Integrated Closed-Loop Data Sourcing and Quality Feedback

Demonstrate prior experience — or describe a credible, evidence-based approach demonstrating how data quality findings at the output end of a data pipeline informed and improved data sourcing or pipeline decisions at the input end. Acceptable formats include a data source change log, sourcing decision memo, pipeline configuration change record, quality findings report with documented follow-on actions, or equivalent. The documentation must show a specific instance in which a quality finding led to a documented change in sourcing, pipeline configuration, or data acquisition strategy. For teaming arrangements where WA A and WA E are performed by different entities, describe the specific mechanism – organizational or contractual – that ensures the feedback loop functions across organizational boundaries.

4. Focus Area 4 — Objectivity and Independent Verifiability

Provide a narrative that describes how your experience ensures that WA E quality findings are objective and independently verifiable by CMS without contractor assistance. Specifically address: (a) how you distinguish errors originating in WA A source data from errors introduced by downstream WA B, WA C, or WA D transformation; (b) what data lineage and audit trail methodology you have maintained to support independent root cause attribution; and (c) how you have handled a situation in which your WA E root cause attribution is disputed by CMS or by the WA B/WA C/WA D contractor. Offerors who’s experience relies solely on contractor self-reporting without independent CMS verification mechanisms will be rated lower than offerors who propose transparent, auditable, government-verifiable quality assessment approaches.

How this factor will be evaluated

The Government will assess how well the previous experience demonstrates performance of work similar to that envisioned by the Government in pursuit of the intent described in this solicitation. Considerations may include specific technologies, architectures, stakeholders (e.g., clients, users, etc.), tools, methods or anything else the Government considers relevant within this context. Offerors are therefore encouraged to describe how the experience aligns to the Government's intent including the objectives of the SOO and the work envisioned under the PWS. Also, the Government may consider the source of the experience and the role of that source envisioned by the Government in performance of the work envisioned under this solicitation. The Government may consider information other than that included in the proposal (e.g., Client Organization point of contact) when evaluating this factor.

Phase Two (2)

1. Performance Work Statement (PWS) & Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (Factor Two)

How to prepare this portion of the proposal:

Prepare and include in the proposal a Performance Work Statement (PWS) which describes in detail the proposed solution in light of the Government's intent described in the SOO.

Offerors should articulate their understanding of the agency’s needs and correlate them to the proposed solution. The PWS should describe the following things: (1) the tasks to be performed and deliverables to be provided; (2) the people, tools, measures and methods to be used in performance of the tasks and management of the overall effort; and (3) underlying assumptions.

The PWS should include an organizational chart and/or staffing plan illustrating, as applicable, the number of personnel assigned to each scrum team, their job title and role.

Key personnel should be identified as such with an explanation of the qualifications needed for successful performance the role. While the SOO may include a level of effort and/or skill mix estimate or assumption, respondents are not bound to quote only what is estimated or assumed by the Government in this regard. Respondents must carefully review the RFQ and quote their own estimated skill mix and level of effort which they believe necessary to deliver the approach described in the PWS. The PWS should describe the respondent’s approach to staffing the proposed team including hiring plans/time-lines. The PWS should describe a process for management of the overall task order including working with the Product Owner, COR, and End Users to capture user stories, prioritize, and work-off the product backlog.

The PWS must disclose and explain the planned use of any used, reconditioned, or remanufactured supplies, or unused former Government surplus property under the contract.

The PWS must disclose and explain the planned use of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) under the contract.

The PWS must include a consolidated list of any assumptions, exclusions, exceptions and clarifications. If not noted in the PWS, CMS will assume that there are no assumptions and that the Contractor agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions as set forth herein.

It is not the responsibility of CMS to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the submission. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that includes any assumption that CMS determines may adversely affect the agency’s ability to have its needs successfully met. Details regarding this requirement are provided below:

Assumptions: The Government assumes that any assumptions that were provided in the RFP have been considered and utilized in developing the solution. Discuss any other assumptions developed when formulating proposed solutions. Provide sufficient detail to fully justify those assumptions, including any history that contributes to the belief in the correctness of those assumptions. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of their assumptions, both during the evaluation of responses and task order performance.

Exclusions: Discuss any needed efforts that were not included in the proposed solution with the rationale for omission.

Exceptions & Clarifications: Discuss any caveats, exceptions and/or clarifications (including any deviations and conditional assumptions) to the requirements described in the RFP and the solution proposed in the PWS. Any exceptions must contain sufficient justification to permit evaluation by the Government.

Responses must include a draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for consideration by the Government in developing its own QASP. The proposed QASP and Performance Measurement approach should be commensurate with the delivery methodology described in the PWS. It should illustrate how proposed performance standards will be measured, evaluated, and reported.

The PWS must not exceed 20 pages (excluding the QASP). The QASP must not exceed 5 pages.

The PWS included in the Contractor’s proposal will be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, CMS intends to remove any restrictive markings or legends from the PWS and the draft QASP at that time, and those documents will become government property at that time.

How this factor will be evaluated

The Government will evaluate the merits of the proposed PWS/QASP to meet the Government's intent described in the SOO. Specifically, how well the PWS demonstrates understanding of the Government's needs, and the extent to which the people, processes, performance measures and tools will serve to address the needs and challenges associated with performance of the work.

Inaccurate assumptions included in the PWS may be viewed as a lack of understanding with respect to CMS’ needs and such responses may be unfavorably evaluated or removed from consideration for award. Furthermore, the inclusion of caveats, exclusions, exceptions or clarifications (including any deviations and conditional assumptions) may result in a response being unfavorably evaluated or removed from consideration for award.

2. Oral Presentation (Interview-Style)

Instructions for Interview-style Oral Presentations

Schedule and Agenda:

1. Introductions: Approximately 10 minutes

2. Contractor Oral Presentation: 1 hour maximum, including a 5-minute break

3. Clarifying Q&A Session (only if necessary): 15-minute maximum

4. Total Time: 1 hour maximum

Contractor Oral Presentation: Respondents will answer the Government’s core questions, which will be provided at the beginning of the oral presentation. All respondents will be asked the same set of core questions. Additionally, respondents may be given a scenario detailing a hypothetical government problem from which they may create a hypothetical solution (i.e., a “solutioning exercise”). If requested by CMS, this is an opportunity for the team to demonstrate use of the solutions they intend to describe in their Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This part of the oral presentation will not exceed the time limit specified above. The session may go shorter than the maximum allotted time, but may not exceed the time limit. Any break time will not be counted in the time limit. The Contracting Officer will strictly enforce this time limit on all respondents and will end the presentation if it overruns the time limit. The respondent is responsible for managing the time allotted for answering questions and completing any solutioning exercise. The Government will decide when to take the 5-minute break, though the respondent can request it at any time. The respondent’s team may caucus during the presentation. However, the clock will continue to run during any such caucus and will be counted within the time limit. Additionally, the Government will observe any such caucusing.

Clarification Session:

If necessary, based on a unilateral determination of the Government, the Government will allocate time for clarification following the delivery of answers to the initial presentation. During this period, the Government may ask questions seeking clarification on any of the information presented by the respondent and will not constitute discussions. The answers given in this session are part of the oral presentation. The Government’s clarifying questions may differ among the respondents based on what needs clarification. If the Government has no clarifying questions requiring follow-up with a particular respondent, then this part of the session will not take place.

Participants:

The respondent’s presentation team must include only those personnel who will participate in the performance of the task order, and should include the proposed key personnel. The presentation team is limited to five employees total including a mix of the proposed prime or Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) teammate(s).

Subcontractors or consultants are not allowed to participate, unless those individuals are designated as key personnel. Any firm may attend only one oral presentation. For example, a CTA teammate cannot show up for more than oral presentation.

The team should be present for both the core question and clarification session since the Government may ask questions during each phase. If oral presentations are conducted in-person, all participants in the oral presentation must be physically present at the Government’s designated location and no teleconference bridge will be made available. No cell phones or computers will be used during the course of oral presentations, except as necessary to connect with the Government in the event oral presentations are conducted remotely. The presentation team may not reach back to any other personnel during the oral presentation. Names of attendees must be provided to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled oral presentation date. If any proposed participants include foreign nationals (i.e., holders of H-1B visas), then CMS needs the names 13 days in advance.

Location for Oral Presentations:

Oral presentations will be conducted in-person and the Contracting Officer will provide meeting invitations and additional instructions to respondents through separate correspondence. Oral presentations will be held in the vicinity of CMS’ HQ Office in Woodlawn, MD. The specific location and address will be furnished when the oral presentation is scheduled. The presentation team should arrive at the location at least thirty minutes before the scheduled time for commencement of the oral presentation, in order to allow time for building access through security and travel to the specific room. Each member of the presentation team must have a valid Government issued ID. Respondents are responsible for familiarizing themselves with security requirements for access to CMS locations to reduce the potential for failure to gain access, which is the responsibility of the respondent. Attendees will be subject to CMS Security screening and briefcases, laptops, purses, carry-ins are subject to search and x-ray security.

Other Matters:

1. Interview-style oral presentations will be conducted using a question and answer format focused on the contractor’s proposed approach to performing the work, including qualifications of key personnel. Since this is an interview-style oral presentation, respondents must not bring or present slides, graphs, charts or any other written presentation materials. The Government will not accept or receive contractor handouts.

2. If conducted in-person, presentations will be held in a conference room with sufficient size to accommodate the presentation team and Government representatives. If conducted virtually (e.g., CMS Zoom), the Government will host the presentation on a platform of its choosing.

3. The oral presentation may include an exercise where respondents are asked to develop a solution to a hypothetical problem or need of the Government. Such an exercise may include the development of artifacts which will be submitted to the Contracting Officer upon conclusion of the oral presentation. If so, no updates will be allowed for artifacts/images following their delivery to the Contracting Officer. Examples of artifacts include (but are not necessarily limited

to) visual aids prepared on a "white board" (digital or physical), user stories, wireframes, and test plans.

4. If conducted virtually, respondents are permitted to share their screen and use a digital "white board." That board should be blank at the beginning of the presentation and should be capable of being exported to a format such as .gif or .pdf so that the respondent can send a copy of the board to the Contracting Officer following the conclusion of the oral presentation.

5. The Government will provide a white board or flip-chart and markers for the respondent’s use during in-person oral presentations.

6. Paper notes and copies of the solicitation and/or quote are acceptable for use during presentations. The Government may take notes during the presentation at its discretion which becomes the Government’s exclusive property, and may use such notes in the evaluation. No copies will be provided to the respondent. The Government may elect to record the oral session at its discretion and as its exclusive right and property. The Government will not provide a copy of the videotape or recordings to the respondents and the respondents are prohibited from making its own recording of the oral session in any way or by any method.

7. Government questions will be provided by the Contracting Officer; any other Government attendees are not expected to engage with respondents directly. Respondents may not generally ask questions during the oral presentation. Any such questions should be directed to the Contracting Officer and deal with matters pertaining to logistics and conduct of the oral presentation.

8. Travel and other costs associated with participation in the oral presentation by respondents will not be reimbursed.

9. In the event a respondent fails to participate and provide an oral presentation, then the Government may remove the quote from consideration for award.

10. Oral presentations do not and will not constitute discussions or negotiations as defined by FAR Part 15. Oral presentations are distinct from the Government’s reserved right to conduct exchanges.

11. The Government reserves the right to eliminate the oral presentation factor. In that event, any best value and/or down-select determination will be made on the basis of the remaining evaluation factors stated in the solicitation.

How this factor will be evaluated:

Responses to the oral presentation questions will be evaluated to determine capability and suitability of the respondent to perform the work required by the

SOO. The Government may consider both the content of the answers and the methods used by the team to deliver those answers.

3. Price

How to prepare the price volume:

The price volume must include a narrative portion and a spreadsheet. The narrative portion includes no page limit and should include a cover letter and a Basis of Estimate (BOE). The spreadsheet should provide a detailed build up by element of price for each CLIN. Further instructions for preparing each part of the price volume are provided below.

Cover Letter

1. Offeror’s company name & SAM EIN

2. Acknowledgement of receipt for any solicitation amendments issued by the

Government

3. Name and contact information of the offeror’s authorized negotiator(s)

4. Include a summary showing the price by line item as specified in the RFP.

Basis of Estimate (BOE)

1. The BOE should discuss the estimating methodology used to develop the proposed price (e.g., engineering estimates, should-cost analysis, historical benchmarks, subcontractor responses, vendor proposal or awarded purchase orders, catalog pricing, cost drivers and associated estimates of their activity, etc.). Further, it should describe the types of labor, material, and other direct costs (ODCs) as applicable. This should include a description of the qualifications associated with each proposed labor category and mapped to the position titles contemplated in performance of the needed work. It should include a description for material or ODCs as applicable (e.g., computer software) and any relevant performance information and rationale for the proposed quantity. The PWS should provide insight as to the scope of work envisioned under each line item. Offerors can choose to propose value added services under the services CLIN in each option period, at their discretion.

2. Proposal shall be provided in searchable PDFs and/or Word files and the cost information in Excel. The Excel file shall be unprotected, and include all formulas utilized in the formation of the spreadsheets.

3. For clarity, consider if the BOE should include a separate section for each task area / work-stream for cost elements such as labor hours and material, and an overarching section for things like labor rates, escalation, or assumptions that apply to all work in the order.

4. In accordance with FAR 12.209 and FAR 15.403-1(b), offerors shall provide support for proposed commercial prices as applicable:

Published price lists Catalog prices Market prices Historical sales for the same or similar items Discounts offered to other customers

5. If subcontractors are proposed, the offeror shall provide:

A description of the services to be subcontracted (i.e., PWS):

Basis of subcontractor pricing (quotes, price lists, etc.)

Identification of the pricing arrangement (e.g., Fixed Price and T&M);

Results of the subcontract analysis in the form of a subcontract negotiation memorandum

6. The contractor should provide a copy of any forward pricing rate agreements or provisional indirect billing rates approved by a cognizant Government agency, if available. All indirect costs must be sufficiently explained.

7. Certified Cost or pricing data is not required however; Offerors shall provide any required data or documentation to demonstrate that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable. The Government may request additional information consistent with FAR 12.212 and FAR 15.403-3 if needed to determine price reasonableness.

Spreadsheet

1. Include a summary showing the price by line item as specified in the RFP. As needed, insert links and any additional tabs to complete the specified requirements of the spreadsheet.

2. Separate cost and/or pricing information should be submitted for each CLIN specified in the RFP, and then by task area or work-stream as specified in the

PWS.

3. It should be a fully-calculating spreadsheet with cells linked.

4. Prices should be broken down by element (e.g., labor, material and Other Direct

Costs (ODCs))

5. Proposed travel should be broken out into number of trips, number of travelers, and duration of trip for each destination. Details should be shown for all items, including commercial transportation, daily per diem rates, personal mileage, daily car rentals, etc. Travel costs will be reimbursed in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).

6. Offerors are encouraged to use the RFQ Pricing Template attachment included with this solicitation. At a minimum, offerors shall complete the CMS labor rollup tab of the RFQ pricing template.

7. The proposed cost/price of subcontractors or CTA teammates should be proposed in the same manner and degree of detail as prime contractor, though the proposal should indicate which costs (labor or otherwise) are expected to be incurred by a subcontractor, prime contractor or CTA teammate

8. Separate cost/price responses from proposed subcontractors or teammates are not required.

9. If CTA is proposed, separate cost/price build-ups should be provided for each contractor at the CLIN level, rolling up to a total cost/price for each contractor and a grand total by CLIN for all contractors.

How this factor will be evaluated

Prices will be evaluated in accordance with RFO FAR 15.404-1 to ensure they are fair and reasonable, including consideration of the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed to perform the Statement of Objectives.

4. Section 508

How to prepare the 508 volume:

(HHSAR 352.239-78 Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Notice (Mar 2024) (Deviation)):

Any offeror responding to this solicitation must comply with established HHS Information and Communication Technology (ICT) accessibility standards. Information about Section 508 is available at https://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/index.html.

The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this solicitation are stated in the clause at 352.239-79 Information and Communication Technology Accessibility. In order to facilitate the Government’s determination whether proposed ICT supplies, products, platforms, information, and documentation meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, offerors must submit an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) (based on the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) see https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat) in accordance with the completion instructions. The purpose of the checklists and conformance reports are to assist HHS acquisition and program officials in determining whether proposed ICT supplies, products, platforms, information, and documentation conform to applicable Section 508 accessibility standards. Checklists and ACRs evaluate—in detail—whether the ICT conforms to specific Section 508 accessibility standards and identifies remediation efforts needed to address conformance issues.

If an offeror claims its supplies or services meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, and it is later determined by the Government, i.e., after award of a contract or order, that supplies, products, platforms, information, documentation, or services support delivered do not conform to the described accessibility standards, remediation of the supplies, products, platforms, information, documentation, or services support to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its expense.

In order to facilitate the Government's determination whether proposed ICT supplies meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, offerors must submit an Accessibility Conformance Report, in accordance with its completion instructions and tailored to the requirements in the solicitation. The purpose of the Report is to assist HHS acquisition and program officials in determining whether proposed ICT supplies conform to applicable Section 508 accessibility standards. The template allows offerors or developers to self-evaluate their supplies and document, in detail, whether they conform to a specific Section 508 accessibility standard, and any underway remediation efforts addressing conformance issues. Instructions for preparing the HHS Section 508 Evaluation Template are available at https://Section508.gov/.

In order to facilitate the Government's determination whether proposed ICT services meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, offerors must provide enough information to assist the Government in determining that the ICT services conform to Section 508 accessibility standards, including any underway remediation efforts addressing conformance issues.

Offerors to this solicitation must identify any inability to conform to Section 508 requirements. If an offeror claims its supplies or services meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, and it is later determined by the Government, i.e., after award of a contract or order, that supplies or services delivered do not conform to the described accessibility standards, remediation of the supplies or services to the level of conformance specified in the contract will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its expense.

Items delivered as electronic content must be accessible to HHS acceptance criteria.

Checklist for various formats are available at http://508.hhs.gov/. Materials, other than items incidental to contract management, that are final items for delivery should be accompanied by the appropriate checklist, except upon approval of the Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer’s Representative.

(End of provision)

How this information will be evaluated

The 508 evaluation will not result in a score/rating as it is only applicable to the apparent successful Offeror. The evaluation of the 508 volume will not be considered in terms of best value. CMS will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and ability to meet applicable accessibility standards. If deemed necessary prior to award, the Contracting Officer may have exchanges with the successful Offeror to remedy any issues or request additional information as it pertains to the successful Offeror’s submission. These exchanges with the successful offeror(s) do not constitute discussions and will be utilized to ensure that award is made to contractor(s) capable of meeting the 508 accessibility standards.

5. Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest (COI) and Compliance

How to prepare this volume:

Complete and submit the solicitation attachment – “Contractor/Offeror Conflict of Interest” as a separate volume of the proposal. A response must be provided for all sections of the form even if no conflict exists. The proposed prime contractor(s) must conduct an analysis of each of its subcontractors’ COI submissions (attachment three (3) or similar information) in order to ensure that the subcontractor can perform services conflict-free. The Prime Contractor/Offeror shall include each of its subcontractors’ analysis with its proposal. The proposed Prime Contractor(s) must not submit the underlying attachment for subcontractor disclosures to CMS. However, the Contracting Officer may request a copy of the subcontractor submission(s).

How this information will be evaluated

(CONFLICT OF INTEREST EVALUATION (OCT 2020): The evaluation of the COI volume will not be considered in terms of best value. In accordance with FAR 9.504(e), the Government will evaluate the attachment “CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR CONFLICT OF INTEREST” as well as other information, as appropriate.