Attachment 4 - Sections L and M.pdf

Managed Teleradiology Services | Sections L and M | RFO Part 15

MANAGED TELERADIOLOGY SERVICES

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Streamlined Competitive RFP | Commercial Services | RFO FAR Parts 12 and 15 | Single-Award IDIQ

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 General Instructions and Proposal Organization

The Government intends to award one single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for Area-wide managed teleradiology services. Offerors shall submit a complete proposal demonstrating the capability to perform the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Technical Exhibits, and other solicitation requirements.

Offerors shall submit proposals in three volumes:

• Volume I - Technical Capability (maximum 15 pages)

• Volume II - Past Performance (maximum 5 pages)

• Volume III - Price (no page limit)

Page limitations apply to the narrative portion of the identified volume and exclude cover pages, tables of contents, and the Government-provided pricing schedule, unless otherwise stated. Information shall be clear, specific, and sufficiently detailed to permit evaluation without assumptions by the Government.

L.2 Volume I - Technical Capability

The Offeror shall describe its proposed approach to performing the PWS. The proposal shall address, at a minimum, the following areas. These areas are evaluation considerations under Factor 1 and are not separate evaluation factors or subfactors.

Clinical Operations

• Ability to provide the required managed teleradiology services across participating Phoenix Area facilities.

• Staffing and coverage approach sufficient to meet required service hours, workload fluctuations, and continuity requirements.

• Approach to meeting routine, urgent, STAT, critical-result, and other applicable turnaround requirements.

• Quality assurance, peer review, and performance-monitoring processes.

System Integration and Security

• Approach to PACS and HL7 integration and implementation.

• Proposed system architecture and compatibility with existing IHS infrastructure, including the non-cloud architecture required by the PWS.

• Information-security and HIPAA compliance approach, including compliance with applicable IHS, HHS, and

Federal information-security requirements and required interconnection/security agreements.

Area-Wide Support Capability

• Approach to supporting multiple participating facilities with varying workloads, modalities, service hours, workflows, and operational requirements.

• Approach to workload fluctuations, onboarding additional participating facilities/providers, implementation of new imaging modalities, and expansion of services contemplated by the PWS.

Credentialing and Privileging

• Approach to credentialing and privileging radiologists and maintaining required credentials and privileges throughout contract performance.

• Experience supporting credentialing and privileging requirements in Federal or comparable healthcare environments, including credentialing-by-proxy arrangements when applicable.

L.3 Volume II - Past Performance

Provide information for up to three (3) recent and relevant past or current contracts performed within the last five

(5) years for efforts similar to the Government requirement. References may include Federal, State, and local government, private-sector, and other contracts.

For each reference, provide:

• Customer/agency and contract number, if applicable.

• Contract type, period of performance, and approximate value.

• Description of the services performed and the Offeror's role, including whether performance was as a prime contractor, subcontractor, or other team member.

• Explanation of relevance to this requirement, including similarity in size, scope, complexity, healthcare environment, teleradiology services, and multi-facility performance, as applicable.

• Customer point of contact, including current telephone number and email address, if available.

• Description of significant performance problems encountered, if any, and the corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

The Government may consider past performance information provided by the Offeror and information obtained from other Government or commercial sources. Offerors are responsible for providing sufficient information to permit the Government to assess relevance.

L.4 Volume III - Price

The Offeror shall complete the Government-provided pricing schedule for the Base Period and each option period. Proposed unit prices shall be firm-fixed prices and fully burdened and all-inclusive of all costs necessary to perform the applicable service, including labor, supervision, overhead, general and administrative expense, insurance, credentialing, integration/interface costs allocated to the applicable line item, and profit, except for any item expressly identified by the solicitation as separately priced or reimbursable.

The Offeror shall provide pricing for every required line item and period. The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated using the solicitation pricing schedule and the estimated quantities identified for evaluation. Estimated quantities are for evaluation and planning purposes and do not constitute guaranteed ordering quantities beyond the minimum guarantee stated in the contract.

L.5 Proposal Submission, Acceptance, and Exchanges

Submit proposals electronically through the method identified in the solicitation by the date and time specified.

Proposal acceptance shall remain open for the period stated in the solicitation.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without negotiations. The Government may conduct clarifications consistent with RFO FAR 15.202. Clarifications may be used to enhance the Government's understanding of a proposal, allow reasonable interpretation, or address ambiguities, perceived weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes, but may not be used to revise a proposal or cure a deficiency or material omission.

If the Government determines negotiations are necessary, the Contracting Officer will proceed in accordance with

RFO FAR 15.204.

L.5 Questions

Questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing to dekovan.cook@ihs.gov no later than October

7, 2026, at 5:00 PM ET. Questions received after this deadline may not receive a response. Responses to questions that affect proposal preparation will be provided to all prospective offerors through an amendment or other public notice, as appropriate.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Award

The Government intends to award one single-award IDIQ contract to the responsible and eligible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering Technical Capability, Past Performance, and

Price. A tradeoff approach will be used. Award may be made to other than the lowest-priced Offeror when the evaluated benefits of a higher-priced proposal merit the additional cost.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without negotiations. If the Government determines negotiations are necessary, the rationale will be documented and negotiations will be conducted in accordance with RFO FAR Part 15.

M.2 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 - Technical Capability

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror's proposed approach and demonstrated capability to successfully perform the PWS. The evaluation will consider the following areas as part of the single Technical

Capability factor:

• Clinical operations, staffing and coverage, turnaround-time management, and continuity of required teleradiology services.

• Quality assurance, peer review, and performance-monitoring processes.

• Credentialing and privileging approach and ability to maintain qualified radiologists throughout performance.

• PACS/HL7 integration, system compatibility, cybersecurity, HIPAA, and applicable IHS/HHS/Federal information-security requirements, including compatibility with the required non-cloud architecture.

• Ability to support participating Phoenix Area facilities, varying workloads and service levels, implementation of new modalities, and future growth or expansion contemplated by the PWS.

The Government may identify strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and performance risks supported by the proposal and relevant to the stated evaluation criteria. A proposal containing a deficiency may be ineligible for award without proposal revision through negotiations.

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's record of performing similar work to assess the Government's confidence in successful performance of this requirement. The evaluation may consider the recency, relevance, quality, source, and context of available past performance information.

Relevance will be assessed based on similarity to this requirement, including size, scope, complexity, healthcare environment, teleradiology services, and multi-facility performance, as applicable. More relevant past performance may receive greater consideration than less relevant past performance.

The Government may consider information provided by the Offeror and information obtained from other

Government or commercial sources. The Government may consider performance problems and the effectiveness of corrective actions in assessing performance quality and confidence.

An Offeror with no relevant past performance history, or for whom relevant past performance information is not available, will receive a Neutral Confidence rating and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the basis of having no relevant performance record.

Factor 3 - Price

The Government will evaluate price in every proposal. The Total Evaluated Price will include the Base Period and all option periods using the estimated quantities and pricing methodology stated in the solicitation. Evaluation of option prices does not obligate the Government to exercise an option or order the estimated quantities.

The Government will evaluate price for reasonableness and balance and may evaluate completeness as necessary to determine whether the proposal can be evaluated as submitted. Competition is expected to be the primary basis for determining price reasonableness; the Government may use other price-analysis techniques as appropriate. The Government may reject a proposal if unbalanced pricing is determined to pose an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3 Relative Importance

Technical Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance. Technical Capability and Past

Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. As proposals become more equal under the non-price factors, Price may become more important in the best-value tradeoff.

M.4 Technical Capability Ratings

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach with multiple evaluated strengths and low performance risk.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach;

evaluated strengths outweigh weaknesses and performance risk is no greater than moderate.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach that meets the requirements with acceptable performance risk.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet one or more material requirements or contains one or more deficiencies that make the proposal unawardable unless corrected through negotiations.

M.5 Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence High expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No relevant past performance record is available, or the available record is insufficient to support a positive or negative confidence assessment. The Offeror is not evaluated favorably or unfavorably on this basis.

Limited Confidence Low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence No expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.6 Comparative Assessment and Best-Value Tradeoff

The Source Selection Authority will make an independent comparative assessment of the evaluated proposals against the solicitation factors and criteria. The assessment will identify meaningful discriminators among proposals and document the rationale for the source selection decision and any tradeoffs, including whether evaluated technical or past-performance advantages merit any associated price premium.

M.7 Responsibility and Eligibility

Award is subject to the prospective contractor being determined responsible and eligible for award under applicable requirements, including the solicitation's SDVOSB set-aside requirements and applicable representations and certifications. The past performance evaluation under Factor 2 is separate from the responsibility determination.