Draft Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Technical EvaluaƟon Criteria The Government intends to award a mulƟple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite QuanƟty (IDIQ) contract to (or all) qualifying offerors that are deemed capable of meeƟng the requirements listed below.

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following technical evaluaƟon criteria to determine the Offeror's ability to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) for this Indefinite Deliver Indefinite QuanƟty (IDIQ) Contract. Offerors are expected to provide comprehensive and detailed responses that demonstrate their technical proficiency, management capabiliƟes, and relevant experience perƟnent to the tasks described. Proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis for two factors: List the factors. All factors must be rated as Acceptable for an offeror to be eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions but also has the opƟon to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. The anƟcipated contract type is a mix of labor hour and firm fixed price (please refer to Statement of Work for details). The period of performance includes a 1 year base period with five (5) year opƟon periods. The evaluaƟon criteria are divided into four main areas: Technical Approach, Management & Staffing Plan, TransiƟon Plans, and Corporate/Relevant CapabiliƟes and conduct a live 15-minute videoconference presentaƟon by key personnel.

PAST PERFORMANCE:

Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of informaƟon contained in the Offeror’s proposal and the informaƟon that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluaƟon will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effecƟveness, and overall client saƟsfacƟon.

CPARS RaƟngs & EvaluaƟons: Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of Contractor Performance Assessment ReporƟng System (CPARS) evaluaƟons & raƟngs informaƟon completed within the past three years, if any.

Relevance of Experience: The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirements based on similarity in size, scope, complexity, contract type, and period of performance.

Only recent experiences will be evaluated. EvaluaƟons may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of the proposed personnel. The Government will consider how the how the Offeror’s recent and relevant experience is similar in scope and scale to the SOW requirements.

Acceptability:

The government will assign a raƟng of Acceptable or Unacceptable for the Acceptability factors 1-3. If all three Acceptability factors are deemed acceptable they will then be rated and scored for Criteria Factors.

Factors

Acceptability Factor 1: Data Enclave

Acceptability Factor 2: Linking Medicare/Medicaid Data

The following Acceptability Factors should be rated Acceptable of Unacceptable based on the table below:

Pass Based on the materials submiƩed in response to the Request for Proposal (RFP), the contractor meets the Government requirement as detailed in the InstrucƟons to Offeror and the SOW.

Fail Based on the materials submiƩed in response to the RFP, the contractor does not meet the Government requirement as detailed in the InstrucƟons to Offeror and the SOW.

The Government’s technical evaluaƟon team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an Pass or Fail basis, assigning one of the raƟngs described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Fail” will render the enƟre proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically Pass, either iniƟally or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the iniƟal proposal, as received, without discussion.

Acceptability Factors:

1. All Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated experience in building a data enclave for a federal enƟty, with at least 5 years of relevant experience with a FISMA moderate or high environment.

2. All Offerors will be evaluated on their demonstrated experience and capability in linking Medicare/Medicaid data with NIH and other federal data sources using methods that ensure paƟent privacy on a scale.

RaƟngs:

If all two Acceptability factors are deemed Pass the government will then assign a raƟng of Neutral, Outstanding, Good, Acceptable and UnsaƟsfactory for Criterion 1-4. The Government will evaluate for reasonableness the non-scorable pricing factors. While the Government will strive for maximum objecƟvity, the selecƟon process is subjecƟve by nature and professional judgement is therefore implicit throughout the enƟre process.

The Government reserves the right to award a higher priced proposal if it determines it is the proposal that represents the Best Value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to not make an award at a price premium that it considers disproporƟonate to the benefits associated with the evaluated superiority of one proposal over another. In any case, the Government reserves the right to award the

Offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government. The Government also reserves the right to make no award, if the Government determines that to be in the best interest of the Government.

Factors

Criterion 1: Technical Approach (40%)

Criterion 2: Management & Staffing Plan (20%)

Criterion 3: TransiƟon Plans (10%)

Criterion 4: Corporate CapabiliƟes (10%)

ADJECTIVAL RATING for PAST PERFORMANCE FACTORS

RaƟng DefiniƟon

Neutral No past performance available for evaluaƟon. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving Ɵmely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the task order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

Good

The Offeror record of past performance indicates there is very liƩle risk associated with receiving quality and Ɵmely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated solid experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

Acceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potenƟal risk associated with receiving quality and Ɵmely services, and contract performance.

Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

UnsaƟsfactory The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.

Criterion 1: Technical Approach (40%) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates that the proposed Technical Approach/SoluƟon and ImplementaƟon Plan are sound (i.e., demonstrate well-thought-out, cohesive approaches and plans); feasible (i.e., executable with the technologies and resources/services proposed); scalable (i.e., capable of being easily expanded or upgraded on demand); and, compliant (i.e., adhere to contract constraints, required Ɵmeframes, deliverables, and requirements).

As part of its evaluaƟon, the Government will also assess the extent to which:

The Offeror’s technical proposal demonstrates that service delivery and Contract performance promote the achievement of government’s requirements.

The Offeror’s submiƩed AƩachment (pending) - SoluƟon Requirements Checklist achieves all Mandatory SoluƟon Requirements. SoluƟons that do not saƟsfy all Mandatory SoluƟon Requirements will not be considered for award. All other things being equal, preference will be given to soluƟons that saƟsfy the Government’s requirements using predominantly “Out of the Box” or “With Minor ConfiguraƟon” opƟons.

Understanding and Approach to the solicitaƟon: The government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of and approach to the types of work described in the task areas set forth in the Statement of Work (SOW) (Tasks 1 through 4) including its demonstrated ability to saƟsfy the complete range and complexity of the technical requirements described therein and, its ability to idenƟfy the key determinants of successful performance for each task area and its ability to incorporate them into its overall approach.

Methodology and ExecuƟon Plan: Provides a comprehensive, logical, and feasible approach to implemenƟng IT soluƟons, data linkages, systems development, and record-keeping compliance.

Approach to the Task Order: The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates that the proposed technical soluƟon is robust, scalable, and will meet or exceed the requirements arƟculated in SOW within the specified Ɵmeframes.

InnovaƟon and ModernizaƟon: Includes advanced methodologies such as ArƟficial Intelligence/Machine Learning, cloud compuƟng, data science, or modern DevSecOps pracƟces where applicable.

Compliance with Standards: Addresses adherence to Federal IT policies, FISMA, SecƟon 508, NIST, HHS, and NIH-specific guidelines.

Criterion 2: Management & Staffing Plan

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates that their execuƟon of this contract will provide effecƟve and efficient organizaƟon, processes, procedures, tools, and controls that will ensure that its soluƟon and service delivery achieve the requirements of the IDIQ.

The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that its Staffing Plan will provide and retain sufficient highly qualified staff resources with specific skillsets and experience to achieve the contract requirements and Key Personnel who are sufficiently skilled and qualified to lead and manage the work described in the tasks areas to which they are assigned.

The Offeror’s Staffing Plan and Key Personnel will also be evaluated based on:

The appropriateness of the staffing for each task and subtask to include the labor mix and esƟmated hours for all key and non-key personnel.

The ability to onboard staff and begin work within 1 week of award.

The degree of relevance of the stated qualificaƟons, specific experience citaƟons, cerƟficaƟons, and skills of each of the named Key Personnel to the requirements for all the tasks and to their idenƟfied roles in support of the Offeror’s technical and management approaches.

For proposed subcontractors, the Government will also evaluate the extent to which the contractor describes

Clear roles and responsibiliƟes for each subcontractor;

Reasonable work allocaƟon based upon successful previous engagements; and EffecƟve processes for managing subcontractors that will ensure that their products are delivered on Ɵme and are of sufficient quality to enable the Offeror to meet all contractual requirements.

Criterion 3: TransiƟon Plans The Government will evaluate the experience of transferring a complex contract with data security needs from the predecessor by

Providing a detailed plan for the secure extracƟon, packaging, and transfer of linked datasets and all metadata to a new enclave;

Describing strategies to ensure zero or minimal downƟme during transfer;

Outlining strategies to avoid any data security concerns during the transiƟon phase; and Describing a project management plan for coordinaƟng transiƟon.

Criterion 4: Corporate CapabiliƟes The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates, through their corporate experience with contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity, the capability to implement, maintain, and enhance the soluƟon successfully. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the contractor

Demonstrates the knowledge and capabiliƟes to successfully achieve the requirements of the

IDIQ;

SubstanƟates its knowledge and capabiliƟes with specific experience citaƟons that link the required experience to its present capabiliƟes and, if applicable, role and work allocaƟon (if subcontractors are proposed); and

Demonstrates the ability to complete this contract based on past performance of other similar size and scope contracts within the past 3-5 years.

Non Scorable Factors

COST/PRICE FACTOR:

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideraƟon is given to prices in the market. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price compeƟƟon but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Addendum To Technical EvaluaƟon Criteria

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following technical evaluaƟon criteria to determine the Offeror's ability to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) for each task on this Indefinite Deliver Indefinite QuanƟty (IDIQ) Contract. Offerors are expected to provide comprehensive and detailed responses that demonstrate their technical proficiency, management capabiliƟes, and relevant experience perƟnent to the tasks described.

RaƟngs:

The government will then assign a raƟng of Neutral, Outstanding, Good, Acceptable and UnsaƟsfactory for Tasks 1-4. The Government will evaluate for reasonableness the non-scorable pricing factors. While the Government will strive for maximum objecƟvity, the selecƟon process is subjecƟve by nature and professional judgement is therefore implicit throughout the enƟre process.

Tasks

Task 1: Enclave

Task 2: Linkage

Task 3: Program OperaƟons

Task 4: Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage AutomaƟon (PPRL-A)

ADJECTIVAL RATING for PAST PERFORMANCE FACTORS

RaƟng DefiniƟon

Neutral No past performance available for evaluaƟon. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience. Proposal receives no merit or demerit for this factor.

Outstanding

Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving Ɵmely services and contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experiences indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the task order. The Contractor has demonstrated significant experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

Good

The Offeror record of past performance indicates there is very liƩle risk associated with receiving quality and Ɵmely services and full contract performance. Past performance surveys and the Offeror experience indicate the Offeror will meet or exceed the requirements of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated solid experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

Acceptable

The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is some potenƟal risk associated with receiving quality and Ɵmely services, and contract performance.

Past performance surveys and the Offeror’s experience indicate the Offeror may have some problems during performance of the delivery order. The Contractor has demonstrated limited experience with and knowledge of the issues and problems of large organizaƟons.

UnsaƟsfactory The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it will be unable to perform successfully on the delivery order.

Task 1: Enclave The contractor has demonstrated the capability to provide, maintain, and enhance a secure federated cloud service environment that supports the cataloging, storage, analysis, and distribuƟon of both linked and unlinked study datasets across mulƟple cloud plaƞorms. This includes experƟse in implemenƟng and managing master data and metadata frameworks with strong data governance and interoperability standards, as well as delivering comprehensive technical assistance and user support services to promote seamless integraƟon, usability, and operaƟonal efficiency within the enclave.

Task 2: Linkage The contractor has demonstrated the capability to obtain and integrate data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as well as from other federal and non-federal sources. This includes conducƟng complex data linkages using appropriate staƟsƟcal methodologies, as well as the appropriate applicaƟon of Personally IdenƟfiable InformaƟon (PII) linkage and/or Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL), as applicable; processing and creaƟng research files—including raw, annual, and longitudinal datasets; distribuƟng linked datasets; and implemenƟng rigorous validaƟon protocols to ensure data quality and integrity. The contractor has demonstrated experience in maintaining and updaƟng comprehensive data documentaƟon and facilitaƟng federated data services for studies that are not linked to CMS or other federal data sources. In addiƟon, the contractor has demonstrated the capability to provide technical assistance and to apply automated processes and AI-driven methods, where feasible, to support scalability and streamline workflows.

Task 3: Program OperaƟons The contractor has demonstrated the capability to manage requests for linked datasets from a diverse range of studies. The contractor has also demonstrated experƟse in integraƟng technologies that enable seamless data access, establishing and maintaining public-facing websites, and delivering comprehensive technical assistance, user support, and training to data users and project teams. Furthermore, the contractor has shown the ability to leverage automaƟon tools and AI-enabled soluƟons, as well as proven project management skills on similarly scoped and scaled efforts.

Task 4: Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage AutomaƟon (PPRL-A) The contractor has demonstrated the capability to design and implement automated, AI enabled Privacy- Preserving Record Linkage (PPRL) soluƟons, including the ability to develop and deploy a fully automated, scalable, and adapƟve PPRL-A soluƟon that supports complex, large-scale data integraƟon while maintaining the highest standards of privacy protecƟon, regulatory compliance, and operaƟonal efficiency.