Attachment A - Exhibit A-4.docx

EXHIBIT E-6

Technical Proposal Attestation

EXHIBIT A-4

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA COMPONENTS (TECHNICAL RESPONSE)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF EXHIBIT A-4

All respondents to this solicitation shall utilize Exhibit A-4, Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Components (Technical Response), for submission of its response and shall adhere to the instructions below for each Submission Requirement Component (SRC).

Respondents shall not include website links, embedded links, and/or cross references between SRCs.

Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. Unless specified in the SRC, there is no character limit. For SRCs with character limits, character counts are inclusive of spaces, but exclude attached tables, charts, exhibits, etc. Text responses must be formatted for 8-1/2’ x 11” paper, single-spaced, and in a size 11 Arial font.

Attachments are acceptable for any SRC response with a form field but must be referenced in the form field for the respective SRC and located behind each respective SRC response. Respondents shall name and label attachments to refer to respective SRCs using the SRC identifier number (Example: SRC 2).

Note: In addition to the complete, electronic PDF copy of this Exhibit, the Respondent should submit its response to each SRC in a separate electronic folder that is labeled with the SRC number. The electronic folder for each SRC response should contain the response to the SRC along with all attachments applicable to the SRC.

Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable.

Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4.

STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE

The SRCs in Exhibit A-4 may not be retyped and/or modified and must be submitted in the original format.

FAILURE TO SUBMIT EACH REQUIRED FORM IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE RESPONSE.

FAILURE TO SUBMIT AN SRC MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE RESPONSE.

FAILURE TO SUBMIT EACH REQUIRED SRC TEMPLATE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF THE RESPONSE.

Respondent Name:

SRC 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Respondent shall include an Executive Summary, which includes the following:

1. Describe the respondent’s understanding of the need and purpose of establishing a web-based organ and tissue donor registry.

2. Describe the respondent’s understanding of the organ donor education initiative in the state of Florida.

3. Provide an overview of the respondent’s plan to provide the services described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, of this RFP.

4. Describes the prominent features of the respondent’s Technical Response.

Response:

Score: No points will be rewarded for the Executive Summary.

SRC 2: ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE

The Respondent shall demonstrate its capability to provide the services described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, of this RFP by describing its organizational structure and history as it relates to the project expectations described in this RFP. For proposals that include a subcontractor, the same descriptions of organizational background and history shall be provided.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of its organizational structure, history, legal structure, ownership, affiliations, and location(s).

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s organizational chart, including the total number of employees.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s confirmation that it is an existing nonprofit group based within Florida. In accordance with Section 765.5155(2), F.S., priority shall be given by evaluators to existing nonprofit groups that are based within Florida.

A score of five (5) points will be assigned for existing nonprofit groups that are based within Florida. For all other organizations, a score of zero (0) points will be assigned.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s synopsis of its corporate qualifications, indicating its abilities to manage and complete the proposed project.

5. The adequacy of the respondent’s office location(s), anticipated server location(s), and backup location(s) for the data storage and website hosting.

6. The adequacy of the respondent’s summary of projects administered by the respondent similar to the one described in this RFP.

7. The adequacy of the respondent’s description that the respondent represents the needs of the organ and tissue donation community in the state of Florida. In accordance with Section 765.5155(2), F.S., priority shall be given by evaluators to respondents that represent the needs of the organ and tissue donation community in Florida.

8. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s knowledge and experience in organ and tissue on-line registry systems.

9. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s expertise in working with organ and tissue procurement organizations. In accordance with Section 765.5155(2), F.S., priority shall be given by evaluators to respondents that have expertise working with procurement organizations.

10. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s knowledge and experience in designing, implementing, and evaluating organ and tissue donor educational training modalities.

11. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s expertise in conducting statewide organ and tissue donor public education campaigns. In accordance with Section 765.5155(2), F.S., priority shall be given by evaluators to respondents that have expertise in conducting statewide organ and tissue donor public education campaigns.

12. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s knowledge and experience in management, promotion and control of services as described in this RFP.

13. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the respondent’s knowledge and experience in marketing and public relations.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 65 raw points for all components. Each of the components are worth a maximum of 5 points each, and a score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 3: PROGRAM STAFFING & ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The respondent shall demonstrate its capability by describing the qualifications and experience of its proposed staff who will perform the services required in Attachment B, Scope of Services by describing its staffing structure, qualifications, and relevant organizational experience.

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Organizational Experience & Past Performance

· Demonstrated experience (within the last 10 years) as a lead vendor on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity

· Experience in organ and tissue donor registry programs or comparable public health initiatives

2. Technical & Programmatic Experience

· Website design, implementation, maintenance, and hosting

· Experience with online registry systems

· Health care data analysis and research methodology

· Survey development, evaluation, and outcomes measurement

· Educational program design and implementation (including evaluation of effectiveness)

3. Staffing Plan & Qualifications

· Adequacy of proposed staffing model (FTEs and volunteers)

· Number, roles, locations, and functions of staff

· Relevant credentials and qualifications

· Experience with bilingual (English/Spanish) outreach and web-based initiatives

4. Key Personnel & Resumes

· Identification of key staff

· Quality and relevance of resumes

· Demonstrated education and experience aligned with scope

· Inclusion of references with contact information

· Subcontractor & Partnership Capacity

· Identification of subcontractors (if applicable)

· Scope of services provided

· Qualifications and experience of subcontracted organizations

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 20 raw points with each of the above components being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 4: MONITORING AND REPORTS

The Respondent shall describe how it will provide reports, as required in Attachment B, Scope of Services, Section B, Services to Be Provided by the Vendor, Subsection D., Monitoring and Reports.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s ability to provide an accounting of web-based organ donor requirements.

2. The adequacy of the Respondent’s ability to report on organ donor educational efforts, including implementation, reach, and effectiveness of outreach activities, as well as planned future efforts.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s ability to provide quality and technological improvement measures if needed.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s ability to provide financial and expenditure reporting to include an accounting of any and all voluntary contributions received.

5. The adequacy of the respondent’s ability to provide comparison data to assist in determining the success of the program.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 25 raw points with each of the above components being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 5: COMPLAINTS

The respondent shall describe how it will maintain a complaint system, as described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, Section B, Services to be provided by the Vendor, Complaints.

Response:

Evaluation Criteria:

1. The adequacy of the Respondent’s plan for receiving, tracking, investigating, and resolving complaints in accordance with applicable Florida Statutes, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) requirements, and the provisions outlined in Attachment B, Scope of Services.

2. The adequacy of how the respondent will ensure that appropriate staff are involved in the complaint process.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 10 raw points with each component worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 6: QUALITY ASSURANCE

The respondent shall describe its quality assurance system, as stated in Attachment B, Scope of Services, Section B, Services to Be Provided by the Vendor, Quality Assurance.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s description for conducting quality assessment, internal review of work performed by employees and subcontractors (if applicable), and performance improvement measures.

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s description for monitoring the appropriateness and effectiveness of the registry management services and educational initiative.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how corrective action will be implemented when problems are identified with either the registry registration process or educational initiative, including any technological problems that may arise with the web-based enrollment process.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how operational sufficiency will be ensured in the event of significant changes or adjustment in operations.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 20 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SCR 7: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The respondent shall describe its preliminary implementation plan, as described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, Section B, Services to be Provided by the Vendor, Implementation Plan.

To describe potential implementation barriers and mitigation, the following format, at a minimum, is suggested for presenting the preliminary implementation plan.

The respondent should provide narrative to demonstrate its understanding of the costs associated with implementing the Registry and education program to support the pricing information submitted in Exhibit A-6, Detailed Budget – Implementation Cost.

1. The adequacy of the aptness and validity of the respondent’s proposed timeline for implementing both the Registry and the educational program.

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s identification of any potential barriers to the timely implementation of the project and proposed methods for overcoming them.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s understanding of the costs associated with implementing the Registry and education program, in accordance with all requirements of Attachment B, Scope of Services, as demonstrated within Exhibit A-6, Detailed Budget – Implementation Cost, and narrative information submitted for this SRC.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 15 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 8: EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES

The respondent shall describe its proposed educational initiatives and how it will improve awareness of the Registry and awareness of laws related to anatomical gifts. Awareness shall be achieved through web-based education, promotional materials, and community outreach events and activities.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the proposed educational and promotional materials, and the appropriateness of the materials for the respondent’s target audience.

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s proposed plan for distributing its proposed educational and promotional materials and for educating and informing medical professionals, law enforcement agencies and officers, other State and local government employees, high school students, minorities, and the public about the laws of the State of Florida relating to organ and tissue donations.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s proposed plan for evaluating the effectiveness of its’ proposed educational initiatives.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s proposed ideas for educational events.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 20 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 9: DETAILED BUDGET REVIEW

The respondent shall demonstrate its understanding of the costs associated with operating and maintaining the Registry and education program, in accordance with all requirements of Attachment B, Scope of Services. The respondent should provide narrative to support the pricing information submitted in Exhibit A-7, Detailed Budget – Operations and Maintenance.

Additionally, the respondent shall demonstrate its ability to control Registry and education program costs with only voluntary contributions, as described in Attachment B, Scope of Services.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s understanding of the costs associated with operating and maintaining the Registry and education program, in accordance with all requirements of Attachment B, Scope of Services, as demonstrated within Exhibit A-7, Detailed Budget – Operations and Maintenance, and narrative information submitted for this SRC.

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s ability to control Registry and education program costs with only voluntary contributions, as described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, as demonstrated within Exhibit A-7, Detailed Budget – Operations and Maintenance, and narrative information submitted for this SRC.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 10 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 10: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The respondent shall describe its proposed data system and program, and how well it conforms to professional industry standards and specifications, particularly in the areas of data input, storage, and transfer.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how the transition of the organ and tissue donor registry will occur with both the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) and the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency).

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how the respondent’s system will interface with the DHSMV system to assure seamless coordination and cooperation between systems.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of the technological mechanism for implementing an on-line donor and tissue registry to include tracking and reporting the number of persons who sign a donor registry and/or contribute to the trust fund.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how internal quality control and quality assurance will occur.

5. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of statistically sound methodologies to evaluate beneficiary outcomes and satisfaction levels.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 25 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 11: SYSTEMS, SECURITY, AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The respondent shall describe its protocols and internal procedures for ensuring system security and the confidentiality of personally identifiable data and disaster recovery, as described in Attachment B, Scope of Services, Section X, Special Provisions, Section XII, Information Technology, and Section XIII, Disaster Recovery.

1. The adequacy of the respondent’s information describing how protocols and internal procedures will ensure system security and the confidentiality of donor identifiable information and donations.

2. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of its disaster recovery plan and ability to resume service with minimal disruption.

3. The adequacy of the respondent’s information detailing capacity (hardware, software, and personnel) to access and generate all data and reports needed for this program.

4. The adequacy of the respondent’s description of how it will maintain current and historical demographic information.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 20 raw points with each component being worth a maximum of 5 points each. A score of 0 will be assigned if the component is not met.

SRC 12: SECURITY RATING REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with Attachment B, Scope or Services, Section XII., Information Technology, Sub-Section T., the Agency will conduct an initial IT security risk score scan on the respondent, using the “Cyber Rating” as provided by RiskRecon by Mastercard, as well as periodic or continuous security monitoring, at the Agency's expense, to enable the Agency to effectively measure and mitigate the successful respondent’s security risks. If awarded, the respondent will work with the Agency’s Cyber Security Rating Provider (RiskRecon by Mastercard) to define the relevant respondent assets providing Agency services.

NOTE: The respondent is not required to submit any narrative response or documentation for this SRC.

The adequacy of the Respondent’s IT security by determining whether the Respondent has received:

a. An “A” Cyber Rating by RiskRecon by Mastercard;

b. A “B” Cyber Rating by RiskRecon by Mastercard;

c. A “C” Cyber Rating by RiskRecon by Mastercard; and

d. A “D” or “F” Cyber Rating by RiskRecon by Mastercard.

Score: This Section is worth a maximum of 5 raw points as outlined below. If the respondent receives a “D or F” rating, 0 points will be assigned:

a. 5 points for an “A” Cyber Rating;

b. 4 points for a “B” Cyber Rating;

c. 3 points for a “C” Cyber Rating; and

d. 0 points for a “D” or “F” Cyber Rating.

AHCA RFP 015-25/26, Attachment A, Exhibit A-4, Page 7 of 7