Posting - Submittal Instructions and Evaluation.pdf

Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Factors Immunization Confidence in Indigenous Communities

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

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 requirements:

1. Demonstrate subject matter expertise in immunization and preventable diseases in the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations.

2. Demonstrate knowledge regarding barriers in healthcare, and in-equities regarding patient care, coordination of care, and immunization acceptance and infectious 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 immunizations.

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

5. Demonstrate experience in providing continuing medical education trainings and curriculum development on the topic of Immunization and infectious preventable diseases 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 immunization and infectious disease preventable diseases and immunization education programs.

Please refer to the Statement of Work 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 Statement of Work.

B. Key Personnel The offeror will identify personnel responsible for key roles in the planning and execution of the IHS immunization and infectious disease certificate program. 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.

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

Offerors will provide past performance references for no less than two (2) but no more than three (3) contracts completed during the past five (5) years or currently in process for services similar to this solicitation. Failure to submit the required past performance references will result in rejection of the proposal. At the minimum, the following information must be provided:

1. Name and address of the referenced Agency or company

2. Point of contact name, telephone number and email address

3. Contract number and value

4. Description of the work performed

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

Offeror will be evaluated on performance under existing and prior contracts. The Government may supplement the information the offeror provides with performance information it may obtain from any source including its own experience with the offeror.

The Federal Government uses the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to document contractor performance information that is required by Federal Regulations. Past performance information entered to CPARS is available to Federal agencies through a separate system called the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for source selection purposes. Contracting Officer will assess the Offeror’s PPIRS records as part of the evaluation of this sub-factor.

Submission under this factor shall be limited to four (4) pages.

D. Price Element 1. Offeror shall complete the Price Table below.

For evaluation purpose, the following equation will be used to arrive at the proposal’s total overall price.

Total Price of Base Period + Total Prices One Option Period = Total Evaluation Price

This contract will be a fixed-price contract with a cost-reimbursable contract line-item number (CLIN) for travel. Please complete the price table below.

Immunization Certification Programs Price Table

CLIN Item Quantity Amount $ Base Period -

Provide the Indian Health Service (IHS) with all supervision, labor, and materials to provide planning and execution of Immunization Certification Programs.

months

Option Period I -

Provide the Indian Health Service (IHS) with all supervision, labor, and materials to provide planning and execution of the Immunization Certification Programs.

months

Grand Total

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.

II. 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.

III. 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.