Attachment_2_Trauma_Burn_Inventory_Evaluation_Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors

Developing an Inventory of Trauma, Emergency, & Burn Capabilities in the United States

Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The size of proposals will be limited to 30 pages exclusive of cover pages, resumes, and letters of intent. Minimum font size for proposals main body is 10 point size.

Three factors will be used in this evaluation: Technical, Past Performance, and Price.

Evaluation Factors, other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than

Price. The following factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Technical Evaluation Factors:

1. Technical Approach –Ability to provide a solution that completely addresses the government’s requirement; provided as a Statement of Work (SOW). The SOW delineates the final desired outcome and final objective, the offeror’s quote shall provide the solution and plan to address and fulfill the government’s requirement. The solution should include plans to ensure ongoing support and collaborations with professional societies, the research community, policy makers, EMS, and disaster communities, healthcare coalitions, emergency managers, physicians, patient stakeholders, and hospital administrators.

2. Staffing Plan –

a. Capability to conduct analysis of the trauma, emergency care, and or burn capabilities of hospitals or similar experience for agencies such as ASPR, CDC, AHRQ, and HRSA and/or national level policy or advocacy groups.

b. Capability to use qualitative research methods including but not limited to the running of focus groups, the use of Delphi methods, and/or survey methods to identify and convene key stakeholders and determine the minimal set of data elements, including methods to reconcile conflicting information (e.g. level of trauma center)

c. Capability to develop a sustainable model for ongoing data collection and dissemination and expanding the application of the system to support national emergency care planning.

d. Capability of professional, technical and program management personnel to support the appropriate mix of qualified labor as evidenced by education, relevant experience, and professional certifications documented in resumes and letters of commitment.

Past Performance:

The Government’s evaluation will include an analysis of the Offeror's description of relevant ongoing and previous (preceding three years only) Government contracts. This evaluation will include analysis of the Offeror’s detailed discussion of corporate experience solving challenging problems similar to those anticipated on this effort; experience with Government regulations with respect to the requirements of this effort; if the Offeror has limited or no government contract experience, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of similar contracts with commercial entities, local and/or state governments.

Past performance should demonstrate a track record of collaborating with subject matter experts in emergency, trauma, and burn care as well as engagement with professional societies and researchers representing these domains. A history of work with policy makers, EMS, healthcare coalitions, emergency and disaster managers, hospitals administrators, and other stakeholders on related work is required.

Each Offeror will be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts for similar products or services. Performance information will be used for both responsibility determinations, and as an evaluation factor against which the Offeror’s relative rankings will be compared to assure the best value to the Government. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance, relative to the size and complexity of the acquisition under consideration.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source and context of the information, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance. The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage nor disadvantage of the Offeror. In this case, past performance will be noted as “No relevant past performance history identifiable”.

The Offeror shall send the past performance survey (Attachment #3) of three references and have them submit completed surveys to the contracting officer via email prior to the date for submission of proposals. Offerors shall provide surveys to references for which they provided work similar in size, scope, and nature to that required in the statement of work as prime

Offerors or significant subOfferors, whether for Government or private entities. The

Government will evaluate the offeror's past performance based on customer service satisfaction information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and the corrective action(s) taken.

The Government will rate Past Performance using these adjectival ratings.

Acceptable – An “Acceptable” rating indicates that the proposal contains strengths, but also significant weaknesses.

Neutral - – A “Neutral” rating indicates that the offeror does not have relevant past performance information or past performance information is not available.

Unacceptable – An “Unacceptable” rating indicates that the weaknesses of the proposal significantly exceed any strengths.

Price:

All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. The Government shall make its award decision using a best value analysis through tradeoffs in accordance with the evaluation criteria. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

Evaluation Factors, other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than

Price. The government reserves the right to make a best value decision; trading off technical and price.

Negotiation and Selection of Successful Offeror

Negotiations will be conducted with those Offerors who 1)are determined to have submitted technically acceptable proposals, 2) meet acceptable past performance requirements, 3) adequately address other non-cost factors and 4) provide a realistic cost/price estimate. The

Government intends to award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents

“best value” in that it offers the best combination of technical capabilities, past performance, response to other non-cost factors and a realistically proposed cost/price for this solicitation.

Evaluation Methodology

Offers shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in the solicitation (as stated above), specifically technical approach, past performance, and cost.

Adjectival Rating Definitions

Excellent: Submission exceeds or meets all specified requirements; submission pertinent to program goals and objectives

Good: Submission meets most specified requirements; is technically acceptable

Fair: Submission does not meet some specified requirements or the submission contains weaknesses that may be correctable without major revision. May be recommended for acceptance but at a lower priority

Poor: Submission fails to meet specified requirements or contains significant weakness; does not meet program requirements; not correctable without major revision. Submissions with a

“Poor” rating are not awardable