Evaluation Criteria - Posting 2.1.24.pdf

Cancer Navigation Curriculum Source Selection Plan: Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors

The Contractor will be evaluated for suitability for this contract based upon the following evaluation factors.

A. Technical Capability Factor B. Price Factor

A. Technical Capability Factor

Information shall be precise, factual, detailed, and complete. Offerors should not assume that the evaluation team is aware of company abilities, capabilities, plans, facilities, organization, or any other pertinent fact that is important to accomplishment of work. Offerors must submit resumes. Resumes must include information relating to: (a) Professional Education; (b) Certifications; and (c) Previous jobs.

Technical acceptability will be determined by review of information submitted by the Offeror, which must provide a description in sufficient detail to show that services offered meet the Government’s requirement in accordance with the Scope of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall:

Cancer Navigation:

1. Demonstrate subject matter expertise in cancer navigation regarding American Indians.

2. Demonstrate knowledge regarding social determinants of health, barriers in healthcare, and in-equities regarding patient cancer care and coordination of care in rural areas.

3. Demonstrate the ability to train a variety of healthcare disciplines including: nurse practitioners, nurses, physicians, physician assistants, pharmacists, and non-clinical staff on cancer navigation.

4. Demonstrate subject matter expertise in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) cultural, community, health and cancer issues by clinical experience, training, and/or publications.

5. Demonstrate experience in providing continuing education trainings and curriculum development on topics of cancer and cancer navigation.

6. Demonstrate the ability to partner with other organizations, such as: universities, AI/AN training organizations, or subject matter experts from other organizations to address behavioral health topics that the contractor may not be an expert at, or may not have ownership of the curriculum.

7. Demonstrate the ability to develop toolkits, handouts, infographics, and resource materials in support of cancer navigation topics and cancer health programs.

The Technical Capability Factor indicates, for each Offeror, the quality of the work to be performed and the ability of the Offeror to accomplish what is proposed. The government will evaluate the overall understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the Scope of Work. The Technical Capability Factor will be adjectivally scored. Adjectival rating used to score the Technical Capability factors are as follows:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITION

EXCELLENT

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

VERY GOOD

A proposal having no deficiency and which demonstrates over- all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

GOOD

A proposal having no deficiency which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not detract from the Offeror’s response.

FAIR A proposal having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

POOR

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

The following definitions will be used by the evaluation committee to classify the findings of the evaluation of the Offerors.

ADJECTIVAL

RATING

DEFINITION

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the proposal that will have some positive impact on the successful performance of the contract.

Significant Strength

Some aspect of the proposal that greatly enhances the potential for successful contract performance.

B. Price Factor

The price proposal shall be written in a manner that is consistent with the Offeror’s normal, disclosed, and/or approved estimating and accounting practices. Monetary amounts, other than direct labor rates, shall be expressed to the closest whole dollar amount.

Although the price information is not numerically scored and receives no adjectival rating, it is important in determining that the Offeror understands the requirement and the resources required to satisfy it. Price analysis techniques will be applied to the Evaluated Price to ensure that a fair and reasonable price is paid by the Government. The “Evaluated Prices” will be compared with the lower “Evaluated Prices” being more favorable than higher “Evaluated Prices.”

Evaluation Methodology:

The Public Health Advisor will evaluate the quotations. The quotations shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria (listed above) and relative weights set forth in the solicitation. The evaluator will read each quotation and describe, in writing, the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified to support the scores given to each proposal. The scores will be consistent with the evaluator’s written narratives; i.e., a high rating should be supported by a narrative identifying a significant number of strengths and a minimum number of weaknesses. Any quotation that is unrealistic, in terms of technical approach, schedule commitments, and or costs (high or low) will be deemed poor.

Basis for Award: Selection of the successful Offeror will be made based on the evaluation criteria (listed above). The quotations will be evaluated and a contract awarded under the Best Value Continuum approach to permit tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors. This will allow the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror who meets or exceeds the technical acceptability standards established in the factors referenced above.

Technical and past performance, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.