Posting - Submital Instructions to Offerors Health Litearacy 12.19.24.pdf

Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors Health Literacy

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

A. Technical Capability B. Key Personnel C. Relevant Past Performance D. Price

A. Technical Capability

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. Technical acceptability will be determined by a review of information submitted acceptable offeror which must describe in sufficient detail to show that the product offered meets the Government’s requirement in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror shall propose its plan/methodology to accomplish the following major tasks:

• 1. Demonstrate subject matter expertise Health Literacy among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations.

• 2. Demonstrate knowledge regarding social determinants of health, barriers in healthcare, and in-equities regarding patient care, coordination of care, and health literacy efforts in AI/AN populations, including in remote and rural areas.

• 3. Demonstrate the ability to train a variety of healthcare disciplines including: nurse practitioners, nurses, physicians, physician assistants, community health workers, health educators, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and non-clinical staff on health literacy.

• 4. Demonstrate subject matter expertise in AI/AN communities, including cultural, community, and health literacy by clinical experience, training, and/or publications.

• 5. Demonstrate experience in providing continuing education trainings and curriculum development on the topic of health literacy that is culturally adapted for AI/AN communities.

• 6. Demonstrate the ability to partner with other organizations, such as: universities, AI/AN training organizations, Federal agencies, or subject matter experts from other organizations to address 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 health literacy.

Please refer to the performance work statement for further details.

The submission of the Technical Capability Factor shall indicate the offeror’s quality and capability of the work to be performed. The government will evaluate the offeror’s overall understanding and approach to accomplish the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.

B. Key Personnel

The offeror will identify personnel responsible for key roles in the planning and execution of the IHS Health literacy training. Resumes must be submitted for all key personnel, should highlight the qualifications necessary to perform the tasks identified in the SOW, and include the following information:

1. Name, title, tenure, and years of experience.

2. Educational degrees and professional certifications.

3. Accomplishments demonstrating SOW capabilities.

4. Any work history that corresponds with Past Performance references.

5. Trainer must have respect for Native American customs is required and should be observed at all times for the duration of this contract.

6. Trainer required to have doctoral education level.

7. Trainer must have experience working with AI/AN communities.

Key personnel narrative is limited to one (1) page each; resumes are limited to three (5) pages each.

This submission shall be limited to a total of 25 pages or less.

C. Relevant Past Performance

Offeror will be evaluated on performance under existing contracts and performance on prior contracts.

Offeror should note the difference between past performance and past experience. Past performance relates to quality and how well a Contractor performed, while past experience is about the type and amount of work previously performed by a Contractor. The Government may supplement the information offeror provide with performance information it may obtain from any source including its own experience with the offeror.

Element 1. The Offeror’s relevant past performance information -- The Offeror will be evaluated to assess the demonstrated quality of performance on similar work, to include the ability to control the quality and cost of work, timeliness of performance, and effectiveness at accomplishing the goals of previous work. Offeror is required to provide the evidences and corporate resume of two (2) relevant contracts performed during the past three years or currently performing. Relevant contracts are those contracts that are of similar scope, magnitude, nature, and work. A representative of IHS may contact the offeror’s previous customer(s) for a phone interview to help rate the offeror’s performance.

The submission under Element 1 shall include the following information for each contract:

1. Points of contact (Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative and any other pertinent officials that can verify performance) - name, agency/company, address, phone number and email address

2. Contract title & number (and task order number(s) when applicable)

3. Relevancy to the SOW for the subject solicitation in terms of project description and magnitude of the work performed. The relevancy information must be delineated to the level that allows the evaluating officials to make a proper relevancy determination.

4. Total original, present and/or final contract dollar value

5. Explanation of problems, delays, cost overruns and corrective actions taken

6. Contract holder status (prime or sub-contractor)

Element 2. All Concerns shall submit a short narrative that describes their experience in working with communities and organizations that represent a broad range of American Indian and Alaska Native People. In addition, offeror shall demonstrate their understanding of IHS mission, goals and customers.

This submission shall be limited to 10 pages

D. Price

The offeror shall complete the attached SF1449 pricing matrix ensuring that the total price is included.

Supporting documents to support your pricing shall be submitted as an attachment.

Evaluation Methodology:

The Public Health Advisor will evaluate the quotations. The quotations shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria (listed below) 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.

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

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.