RFQ ONC-TRANS2010.doc

RFQ ONC-TRANS2010 Measurement of Clinical Transactions

Through Electronic Health Records

STATEMENT OF WORK

SECTION I

PURPOSE:

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) requires periodic, on-going data on electronic transmission of clinical data to provide an objective measurement of health information exchange. This information will complement other ONC data collection efforts such as national surveys of hospital and ambulatory care physician adoption, information reported by grantees, and information collected by contractors tasked with evaluating key grant programs. Together, this information will help ONC monitor the effectiveness of federal programs and grants relating to health information technology and inform key policy decisions.

1.2.

BACKGROUND:

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act of 2009 set forth a plan for advancing the appropriate use of health information technology to improve quality of care and establish a foundation for health care reform. Central to the vision of a nationwide electronic health information network is the meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs). HITECH authorizes the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to administer incentives to eligible professionals (EPs) and hospitals for meaningful use of EHRs. These incentives are anticipated to drive the adoption of EHRs needed to reach the goal of all Americans benefiting from secure EHRs. The HITECH Act also authorizes the establishment of grant programs that will provide resources to facilitate the adoption and use of EHRs by providing technical assistance, the capacity to exchange health information, and the availability of trained professionals to support these activities. These priority grant programs are:

· Health Information Technology Extension Program (Extension Program), authorized by Section 3012 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) as amended by ARRA - will establish a collaborative consortium of Health Information Technology Regional Extension Centers (Regional Centers) facilitated by the national Health Information Technology Research Center (HITRC). The Extension Program will offer providers across the nation technical assistance in the selection, acquisition, implementation, and meaningful use of an EHR to improve health care quality and outcomes.

· State Grants to Promote Health Information Technology (State Health Information Exchange Cooperative Agreements Program), authorized by Section 3013 of the PHSA as amended by ARRA - to promote health information exchange (HIE) that will advance mechanisms for information sharing across the health care system.

· Information Technology Professionals in Health Care (Workforce Program), authorized by Section 3016 of the PHSA as amended by ARRA - to fund the training and development of a workforce that will meet short-term HITECH Act programmatic needs.

SECTION II

2.0

TASK REQUIREMENTS:

Task 1: Contract Management & Analysis Plan

1.1: Initial Meeting - The Contractor shall meet with ONC staff within ten (10) working days of the award of the contract to discuss the work plan, which will include work schedule, the analysis plan, and the format of reports.

1.2: Work Plan – The Contractor shall produce a draft work plan within five (5) working days of the initial meeting that reflects the discussions from the initial meeting. ONC staff will provide comments/approval of the plan within five (5) working days.

Task 2: On-going Data Collection

The Contractor shall obtain nationwide data that reflects the transaction of electronic prescribing. It is preferred that these data represent all 56 states and territories; if this is not possible, the Contractor should describe the national coverage and distribution of these data with a full explanation for any geographic areas not covered. These data must be obtained from an existing data collection effort conducted by the Contractor and must be collected on an on-going basis to allow for comparison of results over the 48 months of the contract. The Contractor must take steps to verify the accuracy of the data that is collected and provide a written description of the steps taken.

Task 3: Data Analysis

The Contractor shall conduct analyses and produce tables describing the number and type of providers/entities engaged in transaction of e-prescribing information (i.e., providers and pharmacies). The Contractor shall provide detailed analyses describing the data by the following geographic breakdowns: state, primary metropolitan statistical area, county, and zip code, and identify any areas where accurate estimates of exchange could not be made with an explanation for this lack of available information. The Contractor must also, wherever possible, fully describe the entities engaged in the clinical transaction, by providing breakdowns by provider type and identifying characteristics, including clinical degree (MD, DO, etc.), size of practice, payer mix, and pharmacy ownership (independent, national chain). The Contractor should provide the source of the electronic prescriptions (i.e., whether through a given EHR or a stand-alone system).

Task 4: Reports and Data Files

The Contractor shall produce reports from the data analysis with tables showing the geographic and provider/business entity breakdowns outlined above. The Contractor shall also provide data files in hard copy and electronic form on a CD ROM in CSV or other mutually agreed upon data format. The exact data elements will be specified in the initial meeting between the Contractor and the Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COTR). The reports will be provided quarterly at a minimum.

SECTION III

3.0.

DELIVERABLES AND PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE:

3.1

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance shall be for 48 months after the award of the purchase order.

3.2

DELIVERABLES

All deliverable required by this purchase order shall delivered to the COTR for review and approval.

The Contractor shall prepare and submit the following deliverables on the required due date, in the quantity and format stated (if applicable), to the COTR

TASK 1: Contract Management

SECTION IV

4.0

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

The Contractor shall invoice on a quarterly basis with the submission of the contractor’s quarterly report. Each quarterly submission will equal 1/16th of the total contract award amount.

SECTION V

5.0

SUBMISSION OF QUOTE

Quote shall be submitted in electronic format compatible with MS Office 2003. The quote shall contain two parts (Part A – Technical Solution, Part B – Price Proposal). The quote shall contain the following information:

1. The Proposal Transmittal Letter shall formally transmit the complete proposal and include the following items:

· Introduction – showing corporate capabilities and overall approach to the statement of work.

· Teaming Arrangements. Vendors must abide by the terms and conditions of the each Schedule Holder’s contract. The Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Teaming Arrangements established for the purpose of responding to this Solicitation and a copy of the legal document defining the legal agreement that exists among the parties. The teaming agreement should address such items as:

· Identify participants, GSA Schedule contract numbers, and services and/or supplies covered by the Schedule CTA;

· Define terms used in the Schedule CTA;

· Set forth each participant’s team roles, responsibilities, and obligations;

· Identify the scope, period of performance, and procedures for terminating the arrangement;

· Identify remunerations for functions perform, if any;

· Establish scope and limitations of any licenses or proprietary rights;

· Establish representations and warranties among the parties;

· Identify confidentiality requirements, obligations, disclosures, and remedies;

· Identify damages, liability/limitation of liability, and any indemnification requirements among the parties;

· Address administrative requirements (e.g., assignments, how notices will be conveyed and recognized, how changes or amendments will occur);

· Identify any terms that survive the arrangement or termination;

· Describe how invoices will be processed;

· Identify governing laws, venues, etc.;

· Establish how disputes will be addressed and resolved; and

· Address force majeure (i.e., how an unexpected or uncontrollable event will impact each Schedule CTA member’s obligation under the agreement).

· DUNS Number

· Federal Tax Identification Number

· GSA Schedule Number AND Expiration Date: The vendor’s GSA Schedule must be current and up-to-date. Schedule holders with expiration dates during 2009 must provide proof of GSA Schedule Contracting Officer’s intent to renew.

· POC email, phone, and fax number

· Organization of Submissions

SECTION VI

Technical Evaluation Criteria

6.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

6.1

GENERAL INFORMATION

Your proposal shall be evaluated to determine your organization’s ability to complete all of the requirements necessary for successful performance under the contract. A proposal which merely paraphrases the requirements stated in Section C will be ineligible for award. In addition, a proposal that addresses only a part of the requirements will be considered unresponsive to the solicitation and unacceptable for award. Your proposal should show that the requirements stated in Section C of the solicitation are understood and offer a logical approach for their achievement.

6.2

BASIS FOR AWARD

Pursuant to FAR Part 12, PSC will select the offeror that represents the best value to meet PSC’s needs. Best-value tradeoff analysis involves weighing differences in proposed costs versus differences in the other evaluation criteria for each small business offeror solution. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with superior performance capability than low cost.

Each offeror’s written response to the solicitation, reference information, written and clarifications, and final price proposal will be taken into account in accordance with the criteria set forth below in order to make an award.

6.3

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. Proposals will be scored as indicated hereafter. Technical evaluation factors as a whole are therefore slightly more important than price. The overall technical rating will be determined through the following evaluation factors. The evaluation factors are in the following descending order of priority in terms of importance.

6.3.1 Proposed Evaluation Criteria and Relative Point:

CRITERIA FACTOR

WEIGHTED NUMBER

DISCUSSION AND UNDERSTANDING

10 points maximum

OF THE PROJECT

The Offeror demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and the measurement of electronic prescribing.

2. TECHNICAL APPROACH

25 points maximum

The Offeror’s approach is succinct and logical in format and demonstrates methods consistent with the tasks to be accomplished. The Offeror proposes a clear and detailed approach for collecting and analyzing the e-prescribing data. The Offeror must clearly identify an approach for verifying the accuracy of the data through audit or other approved means.

CRITERIA FACTOR

WEIGHTED NUMBER

3. PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION

50 points maximum

AND PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror must demonstrate and provide evidence of experience for the following. All evidence, including reports, must be provided in the specific format outlined below and be submitted as an appendix to the contractor’s proposal.

3.1: collecting and analyzing nationwide data (preferably all 56 states and territories) that describes physician e-prescribing activity. Offerors must provide an example of the types of data available on electronic prescription transactions.

3.2: the capacity and capability to produce data dictionaries for their files

3.3: the capability to produce reports from existing analytic files by geographic breakdowns of state, metropolitan area, county, and zip code, documenting physician behaviors with respect to e-prescribing. To demonstrate this capacity, the Offeror should provide reports on e-prescribing transactions for the following specific geographic areas:

a) the state of Indiana

b) the primary metropolitan statistical area (PMSA) of Washington, DC

c) Orange County, CA

d) the zip code 70112

All reports must show data broken down by provider characteristics as specified in Task 3.

3.4: the corporate and staff capability and experience in collecting relevant data and evidence of the ability to produce summary reports describing e-prescribing transactions across the U.S broken down by provider type and identifying characteristics, including clinical degree (MD, DO, etc.), size of practice, payer mix, and pharmacy ownership (independent, national chain). The Offeror must provide a history of the data collection effort documenting that the data collected is comparable over time to allow for tracking of trends and documenting the Offeror’s experience producing timely results, on a quarterly basis, and ability to do so for the 48 months of the contract.

4. MANAGEMENT PLAN

15 points maximum

The Offeror must provide the names of staff that will be overseeing the analysis of the data and preparation of the ongoing reports.

MAXIMUM TECHNICAL SCORE = 100 POINTS

SECTION VII

7.0 Past Performance Evaluation

7.1 General

The past performance evaluation is the Government’s assessment of how well the offeror has performed in the past. Especially relevant are the offeror’s record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; and the offeror’s record of forecasting and controlling its cost; and the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules including the administrative aspects of performance; and the offeror’s ability to retain key employees throughout the life of a contract; the offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and, generally, an offeror’s reputation for demonstrating a business-like concern for the interest of its customers. The evaluation of the offeror’s past performance is intended to be a subjective judgment by the Government after it considers all available and relevant information.

7.2 Evaluation of Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated after completion of the technical evaluation. Only those Offerors determined to be technically acceptable will be evaluated. A survey will be conducted consisting of questions contained in, Attachment 1, Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire. The Government will assess an overall past performance rating for each reference contacted. The overall ratings of each reference will then be combined to arrive at a final past performance rating which will be assigned points based on the following rating scheme:

The specific scoring will be as follows:

+10 Points – Based on the offerors performance record, no doubts exist that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. All sources of information are consistently firm in stating that the offeror’s past performance was superior and that they would do business with the offeror again without reservation.

+5 – Based on the offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Most sources of information state that the offeror’s performance was good, better than average and that they would do business with the offeror again.

0 Points - If the offeror has not past performance history or the past performance information is unavailable, the offeror shall receive a neutral rating of 0 points.

-5 – Based on the offeror’s past performance record a reasonable amount of doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Many of the sources of information make unfavorable reports about the offeror’s performance and express concern about doing business with the offeror again.

-10 Points – Based on the offeror’s past performance record, serious doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. A significant majority of the sources of information consistently stated that the offeror’s past performance was entirely unsatisfactory and that they would not do business with the Offeror again under any circumstances.

When evaluating an offeror’s past performance, the Government will also consider the experience of proposed key personnel and/or subcontractors in addition to that of the offferor.

Note: As stated in Section L.4. of this document, the Offeror shall provide a thorough explanation of problems encountered and corrective actions taken. The Government will take the Offerors' comments into consideration when conducting its past performance evaluation. THE OFFEROR MAY NOT BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN PAST PERFORMANCE FOR REFERENCES PROVIDED AS A PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL.

PAGE