EVALUATION_FACTORS_FOR_AWARD.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION HHSI2462019Q00012

This acquisition will utilize best value evaluation source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for an award decision. While the Government Technical Evaluation Team and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm-Fixed-Price base plus four year contract; however, the Government reserves the right not to award any contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1. Basis for Contract Award

Contract award will be based on the firm that is determined to be the highest technically and professionally qualified firm. Determinations for the highest technically and professionally qualified firms will be based on the ratings assigned from the technical evaluation. Firms will be ranked from the highest technically rated to the lowest.

Contract award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include statement of work, evaluation factors, etc.) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

2. Evaluation Factors and Methods

2.1 Evaluation Factors

Based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors listed below, award will be made to the offeror rated as the highest technically and professionally qualified firm:

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

Offers will initially be reviewed to ensure completeness and conformance to the general requirements of the solicitation. Following this initial review, the Government will evaluate the Technical Proposals utilizing the following rating scale for all factors (increments of .50 may be used):

Weighting of Evaluation Factors: Following assignment of the above ratings to each evaluation factor, the following weightings will apply to each factor. The weightings will be computed with each rating to determine a weighted score for each factor.

The ratings for each Factor will be multiplied by their respective weights. Weighted scores will then be summed to arrive at a Total Composite Technical Score.

2.3.1 Factor One – Past Performance (Weighting: 40%)

Past performance shall demonstrate how well the offeror delivers quality services; demonstrates ability to achieve program objectives; meet customer expectations; demonstrates ability to manage and meet priority timelines; and demonstrate overall performance on work similar in complexity to services described in the statement of work. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs consistently and effectively. Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor’s Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems, and commercial sources.

The Government will not be held responsible for those Offeror’s customers who refuse to respond or provide past performance questionnaire information. If the Contracting Officer fails to receive any completed questionnaire for an offeror, the Government will attempt to follow up with the customers once, in order to retrieve the information. After this attempt, any past performance surveys not submitted and received by the due date/time will not be considered.

Past performance questionnaire respondent shall meet all of the following minimum past performance standards on this factor:

Offeror must have at least one project that is same/similar to that of the work required in the project statement of work and this solicitation; AND Each project submitted must be valued at or over $2 million; AND Projects submitted must have been completed, or underway, within the last 2 years through the closing date of the request for quote, and

· All past or current references must recommend awarding similar contracts or using the offeror again for future work and reflect positive performance of the work requirements.

Failure to demonstrate the minimum acceptability standards under this factor will result in an unfavorable rating and possible elimination from further consideration for contract award.

National Standard Performance Reports--provide past performance documentation that offeror, as a whole, has met the following national standard averages in performance:

a) In agreement with 2013 National Rural Emergency Department Study, Establishing Rural Relevant Benchmarks, Ivantage Health Analytics, July 25, 2013, Monthly Measured Total Time in the Emergency Department for discharged patients (“Turn Around Time”), Less than Mean Time of 123 minutes.

b) In agreement with Welch SJ, Volume Related Differences in Emergency Department Performance Joint Commission Journal of Quality and Patient Safety, September 2012; Vol 38:9, Monthly Left Without Being Seen (Left before Treatment completed) Rate of Less than 2%.

Note: Offerors with no past performance information will receive a rating of 0.0.

2.3.2 Factor Two – Price (Weighting 30%)

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Offerors are cautioned that unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.3.3 Factor Three – Personnel (Weighting 20%)

At a minimum, the offeror shall supply six board-certified or board-eligible emergency department physicians to effectively operate the Emergency Department and Urgent Care Departments. Offeror shall provide resumes/CV’s of professional personnel who will perform during the contract period. Include academic degrees and dates received, major and minor fields of study, length of professional experience and copies of current certifications or licensures. Personnel shall demonstrate a working knowledge of the regional medical community as it applies to hospital specialties, etc. Personnel evaluation methods will include the assessment of the physician’s proven work history with the Indian Health Service.

2.3.4 Factor Four – Key Personnel (Weighting 10%)

Identify Key Personnel, the person(s) who would serve as day-to-day program director and as the official responsible for contract management oversight. List key personnel’s credentials and relevant background experience. Offerors shall demonstrate a working knowledge of federal contracts.

2.4 Evaluation of Price Reasonableness, Completeness, and Balance Proposed prices will be reviewed to determinate price reasonableness, including completeness, and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the Offerors. However, data beyond what required shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your pricing proposal.

3. Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if, during the proposal evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to these discussions will be considered in making the source selection decision.