RFP_70RWMD22R00000017_ePCR.pdf

ePCR Solicitation: 70RWMD22R00000017

Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Office of Procurement Operations

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AND COST PROPOSAL FOR AN ELECTRONIC

PATIENT CARE REPORTING SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR THE

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION (CWMD).

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items and services prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the solicitation; Proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. The solicitation 70RWMD22R00000017 is being issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP). This notice and the incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through the Federal Acquisition Circular.

This RFP is for an Electronic Patient Care Reporting System for Emergency Services for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD).

The NAICS code for this RFP is 511210. DHS is anticipating a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract with cost reimbursable CLINs.

The provisions of FAR Clauses 52.212-1 through 52.212-5 apply to this procurement.

Offerers must submit representations and certifications in accordance with the provision at FAR 52.212-3 Offerer Representations and Certifications—Commercial Item. Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management at http://www.sam.gov, in order to be considered for award.

This is a notice that this order is a total set aside for small business concerns. Only Proposals submitted by small business concerns will be accepted by the Government. Any Proposal that is submitted by a contractor that is not a small business concern will be immediately rejected.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ http://www.sam.gov/

Proposal submission is due no later than 4:00 pm, EDT, Friday, September 02, 2022. There will be no exceptions to the time and date on which responses are due, unless determined otherwise by the Government.

All Technical related factors shall be confined to Volume I and Price shall be confined to Volume II. These shall be separate documents in order to facilitate an independent evaluation.

Your response should be forwarded electronically to the contract Contracting Officer with a courtesy copy to the Contract Specialist no later than the date specified above. When responding, please include in the subject line:

“ePCR - ELECTRONIC PATIENT CARE REPORTING SYSTEM FOR EMERGENCY

SERVICES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) OFFICE OF

HEALTH AFFARIS (OHA)”

The tasks to be performed are outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Any questions must be submitted no later than 4:00 pm, EDT, Friday, August 26, 2022. Because of the constricted time frame, Offerers are requested to refrain from asking questions that can be answered by a careful reading of this RFP and limit their questions to substantive ones.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I. Instructions to Proposers……………………………………….……. p. 4

Section II. Evaluation Criteria………………………………………………….….p. 13

Section III. Statement of Work………………………………………………….p. 18

Section IV. Clauses and Provisions……………………………………………….p. 57

Section V. Pricing Matrix………………………………………………….……p. 84

Section VI. Invoicing Instructions…………………………………………..…p. 85

Section VII. Past Performance Questionnaire………………………….….….p. 86

Section VIII. Vendor Question Form……………………………………..……p. 95

RFP 70RWMD22R00000017 - CWMD ePCR Application Support to the DHS EMS System

SECTION I - INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1.0

2.0

(This section will be removed upon award.)

PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY

Proposal submission is due no later than 04:00 pm, EDT, Friday, September 02, 2022.

Offerors shall submit their proposal via email to the Contract Specialist, Lewis Simon at lewis.simon@hq.dhs.gov and the Contracting Officer, Benjamin Simmons at benjamin.simmons@hq.dhs.gov. Offerors that do not meet the delivery deadline for receipt may be excluded from the competition and its proposal may not be accepted.

Offeror shall submit their signed proposal as a “PDF” document. Each electronic file shall be clearly named in accordance with the solicitation provisions and shall be submitted in

“PDF” format except when specified otherwise. Files are not to exceed the standard 5 MB individual file size limitation. The Offeror’s electronic proposal shall be submitted according to the requirements set forth in this section.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

All questions regarding this RFP shall be submitted in writing to the Contract Specialist and

Contracting Officer identified above no later than 04:00 pm, EDT, Friday, August 26, 2022. Offerors that do not meet the deadline for questions may not have their questions considered and responded to from the Government.

Please ensure that questions are written in a way that enables the Government to have a clear understanding of the Offeror’s issues or concerns with the referenced area of the solicitation.

Statements expressing opinions, sentiments, or conjectures are not considered valid inquiries or comments for this purpose and will not receive a response from the Government. Further, Offerors are reminded that DHS will not address hypothetical questions aimed toward receiving a potential

“evaluation decision” from DHS.

Answers to questions will be provided to all prospective Offerors, giving due regard to the proper protection of proprietary information. In order to receive responses to questions, Offerors shall cite, at a minimum, the section, paragraph, number, and page number in the format shown below:

mailto:lewis.simon@hq.dhs.gov mailto:%20benjamin.simmons@hq.dhs.gov

Email “subject line” shall read:

RFP No.: 70RWMD22R00000017 – Questions Submitted by (Insert Contractor Name)

The table below shall be filled in and submitted as a Microsoft Excel (2003 or later) attachment using the following format:

Reference RFP

Section

Paragraph No. Page No.(s) Question

All questions will be answered in an amendment and provided to all Offerors. DHS will not attribute any question(s) asked to the submitting Offeror(s).

3.0 PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS

The Government will not pay any costs incurred by the Offeror in the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this RFP.

4.0 PROPOSAL VALIDITY PERIOD

Proposal shall be valid for a minimum of 90 days.

5.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

5.1 OVERALL PROPOSAL STRUCTURE AND CONTENT

Offeror shall submit a proposal which consists of two (2) electronic volumes, as described below:

Naming Convention Tab Title

Volume I: Technical

Tab A Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter (limit 3 pages)

Tab B Technical Assumptions

Tab C Technical (limit 30 pages excluding resumes,Past Performance

Questionnaire)

Volume II: Price

Price (no page limit), and SF 30 (if any), pricing assumptions (if any), and completed Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix.

Information contained in each volume shall be complete to the extent that review of one volume may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, review of the other.

Proposals shall be legible, single-spaced, typewritten, in a font size not smaller than twelve (12) point

Times New Roman. No reduction in font size is permitted except for charts/tables and text boxes (10-point font) or other graphic illustrations (9-point font). Each page shall have text margins of at least one (1) inch on all sides. Header/footer information (which does not include any information to be reviewed) may be included in the margin space. Pages that exceed the maximum page limitation will not be reviewed.

The Proposal submitted shall fully comply with all requirements in the RFP. Failure of the Offeror to address all requirements of the RFP may render the Proposal unacceptable and may result in the rejection of the Proposal.

Clarity and completeness of the Proposal is also of the utmost importance. The Proposal shall be written in a practical, clear, and concise manner with comprehensive and factual information as well as complete and substantiated data. Accordingly, any Proposal in which material information requested is not furnished, or where indirect or incomplete answers or information are provided may be considered not acceptable for evaluation.

The following are examples of deficiencies that may render the Proposal unacceptable and may result in the rejection of the Proposal:

• General statements that the Offeror understands the requirements of the work to be performed, or simple rephrasing or restating of the Government’s requirements will not be considered adequate.

• Simple statements of compliance (i.e., “understood”; “will comply”) without the detailed description of how compliance will be met may not be considered sufficient evidence that the proposed services can technically meet the requirements of this RFP.

• Submissions containing omissions or incomplete responses to the requirements of this RFP or use of nonspecific phrases such as "in accordance with standard procedures" or "well-known techniques" may also be considered inadequate.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to present enough information to allow the various work efforts, support, and management approaches to be meaningfully evaluated on a fair and uniform basis without discussions. The Offeror shall include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems it identifies in its quote.

Proposal amendments will be allowed only prior to the due date for Proposals. Changes to the

Proposal by the Offeror shall be accomplished by amended page(s). Any changes from the original page shall be indicated by a vertical line, adjacent to the change, on the outside margin of the page.

The Offeror shall include the date of the amendment on the lower right edge of the page.

5.2 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

NOTE: No price information shall be included in Volume I.

Tab A: Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter

Your submission of the Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter shall include the following information:

(a) Unique Entity ID;

(b) Contact Name.

(c) Contact Email address.

(d) Contact telephone and fax number.

(e) Complete business mailing address; and

(f) In accordance with FAR 52.212-3(b)(2), verification that the representation and certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror

Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12 months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), as of the date of this proposal and are incorporated in this proposal by reference (see FAR 4.1201).

Tab B: Assumptions

Firms must indicate, in this section only, if any technical related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with the Statement of Work as written. If technical assumptions are not noted in this Volume and this section of the proposal, it will be assumed that the submitted proposal reflects no technical assumptions for award and the Offeror agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. It is not the responsibility of the

Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the proposal.

Accordingly, any technical related assumptions listed in any other volume or section shall be null and void.

Any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP shall be stated in this Section. The

Offeror is advised that any exception taken to the terms and conditions of the RFP may adversely impact its evaluation rating. Any assumptions that are considered unacceptable by the Government and cannot be resolved may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration.

Additionally, the offeror shall submit their completed HSAR 3052.209-72 – Organizational

Conflict of Interest and FAR 52.209-2 – Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic

Corporation in this section.

Tab C: Technical

Technical Proposals s shall consist of four (4) factors: (1) Technical Capability,

(2) Management Capability, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Cost/Price. Offeror shall strictly adhere to the page limitations.

FACTOR 1: Technical Capability

The offeror shall provide a summary of its technical capabilities and approach that demonstrates in a clear, comprehensive, and concise manner its understanding of the SOW requirements, to include how it will apply the knowledge, capability, and competency to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

The Office of Health Security, Emergency Medical Services Division requires application services compliant with the Electronic Patient Care Report (ePCR) technical specifications outlined by the

Department of Transportation (DOT). Vendors must demonstrate that they provide a comprehensive electronic care reporting application including but not limited to:

• Licensing/Credentialing Management

The system shall provide a mechanism to track expiration dates of all certifications/licenses and provide email alerts/notifications to users regarding pending expirations. The system shall have the capability to track EMS education completed by the provider.

• Patient Care Reporting

A patient care documentation form in an electronic format enabled by a First Responder to document and record patient interactions.

• NEMSIS Version 3 or equivalent

NEMSIS Version 3 Gold and NFIRS 5.0 compliant software characteristics with browser

Agnostic, including but not limited to, MS Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, AOL, Opera, Yahoo, Mozilla, Firefox, browsers, capable of providing 128-bit SSL encryption and built on current J2EE standards.

• Data Analysis

Capable of dynamic and customize data analysis, including predetermined reports, but also allows for detailed statistical analysis and querying of data for future or novel areas of interest which would support EMS funding or resource allocation. Users with the appropriate "rights" shall be able to create and alter tables and views in the reporting database.

• Report Writing

Configurable so that DHS can incorporate report(s) specific to the needs of EMS personnel, and pre-specified data elements meet a given period.

• System Security Audit Tool

Capable of establishing an audit trail to ensure System accountability and security that includes at a minimum the following information: Date and time of event, User ID of person performing the action, asset or resource name and type of access, success or failure of event, source (terminal, port, location, IP address) where technically feasible.

• Health Diagnostics Interface (Monitor)

Capable of interface with electronic medical equipment and import EKG and event data from a variety of different medical devices such as cardiac monitors, AEDs, ventilators etc. Data import must be inserted into the appropriate fields within the system.

• Hospital Integration Tool

Able to utilize probabilistic back-end data linkages to prevent the duplication of prehospital EMS data by multiple EMS Programs/Providers, and capable of communicating this data with receiving medical facilities either directly or indirectly.

FACTOR 2: Management Capability

The Management Capability should showcase the ability of the Offeror to effectively demonstrate their ability to recruit, retain, train and replace staff as it relates to the SOW. The

Offerer should clearly demonstrate how they will maintain a well-trained work force.

The assessment will also consider the following elements:

• Maintaining a highly skilled workforce

• Management of Government office shutdowns and closures

• Resumes for Key Personnel and Availability

• Proposed labor mix and how it relates to the defined requirements.

• Overall retention and recruitment capabilities.

Ensuring that appropriately qualified personnel have clearances and are available for all tasks.

The Government will evaluate resumes to evaluate if the Offeror’s proposed personnel meet the requirements of the labor category. If the Offeror chooses to deviate from the governments listed labor request, they must clearly describe the rationale for the deviations. The vendor assumes responsibility for proper staff and infrastructure required into support this procurement and remains compliant with state and federal standards of fair employment.

The proposal details the work breakdown to a same degree of detail in the Company’s Approach to Performing the Work section to provide confidence that the government is receiving appropriate value for cost.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The proposer shall provide Past Performance references and information that will demonstrate how well an offeror has performed relevant projects (See Attachment 4).

Past performance may cite federal, state, local government, commercial sources, or not for profit sources, and should highlight the company’s key role in the past performance being documented.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Contract Number (or Identifier)

Name and Address of Company/Agency

Program Title

Contact Person

Telephone Number of Contact Person

E-mail Address of Contact Person

Identify if you were the Prime or Subcontractor

Period of Performance (e.g. start date and completion date)

Contract Type (FP, T&M, LH, etc.)

Contract Value

Description of Work (Types of work performed, problems encountered and their resolutions, any subcontractors or partnerships…)

Rationale for relevance of described work to SOW

Lessons learned and application of those lessons to SOW

The offeror is also required to identify any performance problems/issues/challenges arising out of the contract and clearly describe management actions implemented to overcome problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of a lessons learned type analysis. The offeror shall also provide explanation of how those lessons learned will be applied to the SOW to increase the likelihood of successful performance. Evidence of performance-based methodologies in past performance shall be provided where available.

Factor 4: Cost/Price

Each price proposal will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This process involves verification that prices are included for all RFP requirements and that figures are correctly calculated. The Government will establish a “total evaluated price” based on the completed price proposal submitted. The government expects to receive price competition through several offerors. The “total evaluated price” will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2).

If needed, the Government intends to exercise the option for services under FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or a justification for exception to fair opportunity. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend the period of task order performance for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the last option period will be considered for all Offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be at the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options

(including the options available under FAR 52.217-8 evaluated at the same rates as option period 5), is fair and reasonable, and whether the price of the base period and all option periods

(including the option(s) represented by FAR 52.217-8), in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government.

Assessment Criteria and Confidence Rating Levels

Each offeror will be assigned a confidence rating for each non-price factor, but the best value determination will ultimately be based on the source selection official’s independent assessment of the relative merits of each proposal.

The assessment criteria and confidence rating levels are summarized in the two tables below:

Technical Capabilities & Approach and Management Capability Confidence

Assessments

Rating Description

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

SOME

CONFIDENCE

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

LOW

CONFIDENCE

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the task order. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

SOME

CONFIDENCE

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

LOW

CONFIDENCE

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror will be successful in performing the task order. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

NEUTRA

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant past performance is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse, such that a meaningful confidence rating cannot be assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

5.3 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR VOLUME II – PRICE PROPOSAL (NO PAGE

LIMIT)

General

The Offeror shall prepare a Price Proposal that contains all information necessary to evaluate the prices submitted by the Offeror. This includes the completed SF 30 (if any), and a completed copy of Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix. The Pricing Matrix shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel (2003 or later) in order for the Government to be able to verify the accuracy of the pricing submitted.

The pricing matrix shall be completed for all Labor Categories (LCATs) with available hours for all CLINs provided on the spreadsheet.

Assumptions

Offerors must indicate if any pricing related assumptions have been made, conditions have been stipulated or exceptions have been taken with this RFP or the Statement of Work as written. If assumptions are not noted in this Volume, it will be assumed that the offeror’s proposal reflects no assumptions for award and the firm agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions set forth herein. It is not the responsibility of the Government to seek out and identify assumptions, conditions, or exceptions buried within the offeror’s proposal. Accordingly, any pricing related assumptions listed in any other volume shall be null and void. Any assumptions that are considered unacceptable by the Government and cannot be resolved may result in the firm being removed from consideration.

Pricing Matrix

When completing Attachment 3 – Pricing Matrix, the Offeror shall:

• Fill in the proposed fully burdened labor rate and extended price for each task.

a. To assist in the verification of accurate pricing, Offerors shall round labor rates to the nearest hundredth when calculating the extended price for each labor category.

• NTE amounts for ODCs (including Travel) have already been calculated and shall not be changed in the Pricing Matrix.

• The Offeror shall not change any of the above information already provided.

Fill-ins for Other Direct Costs under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I

In accordance with FAR 52.212-4 Alt I (i)(1)(ii)(D)(1), Offerors shall provide a list of all proposed

Other Direct Costs (ODCs) anticipated for the duration of this task order. Please note: Travel is one

ODC that has already been included by the Government for this fill-in. Additional proposed ODCs

(if any) will be assessed by the Government for inclusion under FAR 52.212-4 Alt I (i)(1)(ii)(D)(1).

RFP 70RWMD22R00000017

1.0

2.0

SECTION II – EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS OF AWARD

This requirement will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The best value determination will be made using the tradeoff process, where non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Factor 2: Management Capability Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Cost/Price

The Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis that involves the assessment of benefits of superior technical proposal features (i.e., benefits clearly attribute to increased productivity, increased probability of successful task order performance, and unique and innovative approaches or capabilities) versus the added price. In the event that two or more proposals are determined to be technically equivalent, price will become more important, and award may be made to the lower priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each Offeror should include the most favorable and advantageous price and technical factors that the

Offeror can submit to the Government. Proposal revisions shall be permitted only at the

Contracting Officer’s request.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

A Firm Fixed Price Order will be made to the responsible offeror submitting an overall proposal that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and non- price factors considered.

Non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance with the Technical Capability being the most important and Past Performance being the least important. When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

Technical Business Price/Cost

1. Technical Capability 4. Price

2. Management Capability

3. Past Performance

Factor 1, Factor 2, & Factor 3 are non-price evaluation factors.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

The Office of Health Security, Emergency Medical Services Division requires application services compliant with the Electronic Patient Care Report (ePCR) technical specifications outlined by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Vendors must demonstrate that they provide a comprehensive electronic care reporting application including but not limited to:

• Licensing/Credentialing Management

The system shall provide a mechanism to track expiration dates of all certifications/licenses and provide email alerts/notifications to users regarding pending expirations. The system shall have the capability to track EMS education completed by the provider.

• Patient Care Reporting

A patient care documentation form in an electronic format enabled by a First Responder to document and record patient interactions.

• NEMSIS Version 3 or equivalent

NEMSIS Version 3 Gold and NFIRS 5.0 compliant software characteristics with browser Agnostic, including but not limited to, MS Internet Explorer, Netscape

Navigator, AOL, Opera, Yahoo, Mozilla, Firefox, browsers, capable of providing 128-bit SSL encryption and built on current J2EE standards.

• Data Analysis

Capable of dynamic and customize data analysis, including predetermined reports, but also allows for detailed statistical analysis and querying of data for future or novel areas of interest which would support EMS funding or resource allocation. Users with the appropriate "rights" shall be able to create and alter tables and views in the reporting database.

• Report Writing

Configurable so that DHS can incorporate report(s) specific to the needs of EMS personnel, and pre-specified data elements meet a given period.

• System Security Audit Tool

Capable of establishing an audit trail to ensure System accountability and security that includes at a minimum the following information: Date and time of event, User ID of person performing the action, asset or resource name and type of access, success or failure of event, source (terminal, port, location, IP address) where technically feasible.

• Health Diagnostics Interface (Monitor)

Capable of interface with electronic medical equipment and import EKG and event data from a variety of different medical devices such as cardiac monitors, AEDs, ventilators etc. Data import must be inserted into the appropriate fields within the system.

• Hospital Integration Tool

Able to utilize probabilistic back-end data linkages to prevent the duplication of prehospital EMS data by multiple EMS Programs/Providers, and capable of communicating this data with receiving medical facilities either directly or indirectly.

Factor 2: Management Capability

The Management Capability should showcase the ability of the Offeror to effectively demonstrate their ability to recruit, retain, train and replace staff as it relates to the SOW.

The Offeror should clearly demonstrate how they will maintain a well-trained work force.

The assessment will also consider the following elements:

• Maintaining a highly skilled workforce

• Management of Government office shutdowns and closures

• Resumes for Key Personnel and Availability

• Proposed labor mix and how it relates to the defined requirements.

• Overall retention and recruitment capabilities.

Ensuring that appropriately qualified personnel have clearances and are available for all tasks.

The Government will evaluate resumes to evaluate if the Offeror’s proposed personnel meet the requirements of the labor category. If the Offeror chooses to deviate from the governments listed labor request, they must clearly describe the rationale for the deviations. The vendor assumes responsibility for proper staff and infrastructure required into support this procurement and remains compliant with state and federal standards of fair employment.

The proposal details the work breakdown to a same degree of detail in the Company’s Approach to Performing the Work section to provide confidence that the government is receiving appropriate value for cost.

Factor 3: Past Performance

For each past performance reference submitted, provide the following information, in the format provided on:

Section VII - Past Performance Questionnaire, Page 86.

The Past Performance Factor will assess the quality of work indicated by the Offeror’s past performance within the past 4 years. This assessment will consider the Offerors projects as a prime contractor or first-tier subcontractor on previous or current projects/tasks that are similar in size, scope, technical difficulty, and complexity to the work identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). In addition, the assessment will consider the quality of capability, timeliness of performance, cost control, business relations, and customer satisfaction. In evaluating past performance, DHS will take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers.

The government will assess Proposal’s ability to clearly demonstrate management actions implemented to overcome problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems solved. Evidence of performance-based methodologies in past performance shall be assessed.

The government will review the accuracy of past performance data, including phone numbers of the points of contacts and inaccuracies will be documented.

The Proposer’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Offeror's Proposal and the information that the Government obtains through reference checks or other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality products and services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures overall client satisfaction.

Proposers who are unable to demonstrate past performance, no past performance/experience available for evaluation or who have no directly related or relevant past performance experience will receive no merit or demerit for this factor.

RFP 70RWMD20R00000017

Factor 4: Cost/Price

Each price proposal will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness. This process involves verification that prices are included for all RFP requirements and that figures are correctly calculated. The Government will establish a “total evaluated price” based on the completed price proposal submitted. The government expects to receive price competition through several offerors. The “total evaluated price” will be evaluated for price reasonableness through comparison with other proposed prices and may include other price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2).

If needed, the Government intends to exercise the option for services under FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or a justification for exception to fair opportunity. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise the option under FAR 52.217-8 to extend the period of task order performance for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the last option period will be considered for all Offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the Government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be at the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options (including the options available under

FAR 52.217-8 evaluated at the same rates as option period 5), is fair and reasonable, and whether the price of the base period and all option periods (including the option(s) represented by FAR 52.217-8), in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government.

Each offeror will be assigned a confidence rating for each non-price factor, but the best value determination will ultimately be based on the source selection official’s independent assessment of the relative merits of each proposal.

Statement of Work ePCR Application Support to the DHS EMS System

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction

Emergency Medical Services Branch

Date: May 2, 2021

Section III - Statement of Work (SOW)

1.0 Background

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Medical Operations Directorate within

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) serves as the principal agent for all medical and public health matters. The DHS Chief Medical Officer (CMO) retains the authority to exercise oversight over all medical and public health activities of DHS. In accordance with DHS Management Directives and traditional industry standards, the ePCR system incorporates best practices, tracks, and evaluates the quality of care provided, as well as credentials while ensuring that the standard of care is continually met.

DHS credentials over 3,500 EMS personnel (Emergency Medical Responders (EMR), Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT), Advanced EMTs (AEMT), and Paramedics (NRP)) rendering care in the pre-hospital environment. With and annual call volume of more than 75,000 incidents per year EMS personnel deliver care to DHS employees and, when necessary, to individuals encountered in the course of duty. EMS personnel work throughout the Operational Components such as: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Protection Programs

Directorate (NPPD), U.S. Secret Service (USSS), Transportation Security Administration

(TSA), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), DHS Science & Technology (S&T)

Directorate among others.

2.0 Synopsis of the Current ePCR System

The current methods of EMS data collection utilized by the DHS EMS Branch consist of multiple paper forms and an electronic patient care reporting system maintained by

CWMD for use by any Component EMS program within DHS. Call types documented by

DHS EMS personnel reflect a strong law enforcement influence and include patient transports, non-transports, traditional prehospital patient care and transport, treat and release, as well as, calls that result in patient refusals.

EMS Programs NOT utilizing the existing ePCR System:

Several of the Component EMS Programs use a paper-based standard form (SF)-558, Emergency Care and Treatment Form (or Component equivalent form) to document care and treatment. This form is used by the provider to document care administered to a patient receiving emergency care and assist with the transfer of patients out of DHS EMS medical care to local emergency services providers or medical treatment facilities (MTFs) as required. Completed copies of the paper patient care reports are provided to the MTF or local EMS transport service receiving the patient from the DHS EMS providers. Upon review and sign off by the component Medical Director and/or the Component EMS

Coordinator, any paper-based records are stored in a secure location at the Component.

EMS Program utilizing the existing ePCR System:

The current DHS ePCR system is a partially implemented, web-based data collection system hosted inside of DC 1 (DHS secure services). Component EMS Program providers collect data on paper during the incident and do not enter data into the existing electronic system until the provider arrives back at the station. Once completed the electronic record is available for review and sign off by the Component Medical Director and/or the component EMS Coordinator and stored electronically within DCI. The system was implemented as a separate site at a combination of 40 Component Commands, Sectors and/or Field Offices. The system is NEMSIS Version 2 compliant, accessible via the Internet, satisfies the security requirements of DHS, the

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) and the confidentiality requirements of Federal law. The system currently has a multi-layered security feature accessed via login name and password and adheres to DHS CIO policy on security awareness. All data collected is saved to an on-line database and the software allows printable reports for each patient encounter as well as, a querying function of complete and pending reports for Medical Direction and Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality

Improvement (QI) purposes.

DHS EMS Program personnel are given varied levels of administrative access to ePCR based on designated roles and responsibilities. Designated persons (Medical Director, EMS

Coordinators, and ePCR Administrators) within the Components have full administrative review access to all records for generating ad hoc reports and to query data as it relates to quality assurance tracking and trending indicators (completeness of record, adherence to standards of care/protocols and training). Electronic records are protected by restricted access procedures and audit trails established by the EMS Program Manager and/or the

Component administrator as pan of the utilization of the ePCR. EMS medical care providers only have access to the patient encounters they have initiated, while Component Medical

Directors have full access to all patient encounters as the medical reviewer. CWMD has access to all Component data as it relates to quality ad hoc reporting and queries to the data based on identified data elements to be tracked for clinical and quality performance.

3.0 Scope

The scope of this SOW encompasses the identification, implementation and maintenance of a web-based EMS data collection and reporting system that will fulfill the published DHS

EMS Branch requirements. CWMD should be considered equivalent to a State EMS Office, and the nine (9) existing Components with EMS programs should be Regions/Counties within the State. Each of the nine (9) Components are subdivided differently with the most complex being divided into four (4) Commands that are further broken down into Sectors or Field Offices which may be comprised of one or more Stations. Although EMS providers are assigned to a single Component they may routinely move between Commands, Sectors or Field Offices. The

Contractor shall furnish all necessary personnel, equipment, materials and/or services to meet the requirements identified in the SOW.

4.0 Specific Tasks

The Contractor shall provide DHS specific customization to their product while hosted within the DHS environment as an instance. Should it be necessary, the Contractor may fulfill this initially in a secure Contractor's environment; migrate the software into a secure government environment; prepare all necessary testing and documentation required by the government hosting environment; and implement (to include training) the ePCR system to all the DHS Components with EMS systems. Upon completion of the ePCR system migration into the government environment all work on the above mention tasks will conclude and all payments completed.

4.1 Functional and Technical Requirements

The Contractor shall provide a commercial off the shelf (COTS), web-based System that is:

• NEMSIS Version 3 Gold and NFIRS 5.0 compliant.

• Browser Agnostic, compatible with multiple web browsers, including but not limited to, MS Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, AOL, Opera, Yahoo, Mozilla, Firefox, browsers, capable of providing 128-bit SSL encryption and built on current J2EE standards.

• Able to capture data in an electronic format and transmit it through a wireless connection and is accessible through multiple types of mobile devices including but not limited to laptops and notebooks, PDAs, and handheld devices such as Google, Apple and Android smartphones and tablets.

• Able to meet the following organizational stratification. The DHS EMS Program should be considered equivalent to a State EMS Office, and the nine (9) existing Components with EMS programs should be Regions within the State as outlined in Section 4.0.

• Capable of gathering, storing and reporting all data based on the previously identified organizational stratification,

• Inclusive of a "Dashboard" or "Homepage" for the user (based on their "Rights") that allows them to track ePCR workflow such as the date, time and type or incidents, skills performed, sentinel events and report completion status. The "Dashboard" or

"Homepage" shall have the capability of posting a message to all users that will be seen upon log-in to the system without the need to open a file or click on a button.

• Configurable so that DHS can incorporate short report(s) specific to the needs of law enforcement personnel and K-9s.

• Capable of event/threat monitoring; when pre-specified data elements meet a given frequency threshold, an automatic real-time alert is sent to designated individuals.

Criteria will include, but is not limited to complaints, treatments, cause (mechanism of injury), clinical impressions or dispositions. The system shall allow for configuration as to the number of events in a given time period and notification by email or text messaging.

• Able to allow the provider the ability to enter data into any section of the encounter

(vital signs, demographics, physical exam. history, etc.), on any of multiple patients, at any time, and in any order ("non-linear" system data entry); and have options to move between different screens with a single action.

• Allows functionality for data entry, allowing for pick lists and data elements to drop down depending on prior entries, having mandatory fields (configured to meet DHS data collection requirement), and prompting users to complete necessary fields based on data entered. In addition to pick list data, free form narrative functionality is required. Medical terminology spell checking capability is preferred.

• Able to handle multiple users (DHS anticipated demand volume) at one time with no record locking while being easily navigated, such that any EMS provider can complete a Patient Care Report, including Advanced Life Support documentation, within an average of a twenty (20) minutes or less once trained. Operable on both production and reporting servers or BI (business intelligence) servers in order to minimize server slow down during peak usage times and optimized to allow fast screen re-draws.

Offerors will document their ability to manage DHS Component EMS Programs volume across various internet access speeds.

• Inclusive of a training version of the complete application and database and hosted within a DHS and Contractor agreed upon Development/Testing Environment. This

Training

• Environment shall reside concurrently with the production and staging-testing environments for all versions and Components/Commands utilizing the system and will include sufficient data migration or database population to allow DHS EMS

Providers to adequately test and train on the application.

• Inclusive of an Administration Tool with the capability to activate/inactivate each of the data fields that will be used in the System. The Administration Tool must include the capability to modify the dataset above/beyond the NEMSIS/NFIRS dataset without compromising NEMSIS/NFIRS compliance.

• Inclusive of a Credentialing Management System with the same organizational stratification as the ePCR System capable of tracking the medical credentials of all DHS

EMS providers, including National Registry Certification and multiple state licenses. The system shall provide a mechanism to track expiration dates of all certifications/licenses and provide email alerts/notifications to users regarding pending expirations. The system shall have the capability to track initial EMS and continuing education completed by the provider.

• Compatible with MS Windows 2000 and later versions of Windows (XP/Vista/Win7) as well as, server operating systems from MS Windows Server 2003 through Windows

Server (current version). In addition, should be based on non-proprietary technology, in order to ensure cost efficiency of ownership and connectivity throughout the DHS

Components, and to minimize the risk of potential failure due to the network's configuration.

• Inclusive of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that individual DHS Component EMS leaders can customize, modify or configure to allow the application to follow the natural progression of EMS incidents or business logic for their agency.

• An open, standards based and fully documented architecture. These terms are defined as follows: open - an architecture that allows for the addition, upgrade and/or swap of integrated system components with custom in-house components or third party components without additional cost; standards based - software that employs the use of commonly accepted standards for both its internal components (i.e. j2ee, rbms) and its external components (i.e. soap, rest, ftp, etc.); fully documented - software with an API that is documented extensively and accurately so as to allow third party developers to extend, add to the system, or import/export data easily.

• Capable of having maintenance performed, and releasing new versions, upgrades, security updates, and patches via an internet interface.

• Able to authenticate the identity of users prior to initiating a session or transaction. In order for any field provider to login and use the ePCR application, the provider must enter their DHS EMS Provider Identification Number and a password. Upon entry of this information, the application shall verify the EMS provider's current license and certification, and jurisdiction affiliation against the Credentialing Management System.

• Capable of segregating the functions of System Administration and Security

Administration to provide separation of duties.

• Capable of establishing, managing, and documenting user IDs and password administration. All users must be uniquely identified. Group or shared IDs are prohibited unless they are documented as "Functional IDs". Functional IDs are user accounts associated with a group or role that may be used by multiple individuals (e.g., Emergency Problem/Fix IDs) or that are associated with a production job process.

Passwords associated with functional IDs are exempt from the password restriction on sharing and change requirements.

• Inclusive of an authorization process which specifically grants access to information ensuring that access is strictly controlled, audited, and supports the concepts of "least possible privileges" and "need-to-know".

• Capable of establishing an audit trail to ensure System accountability and security that includes at a minimum the following information:

o Date and time of event o User ID of person performing the action o Asset or resource name and type of access o Success or failure of event o Source (terminal, port, location, IP address) where technically feasible.

• Capable of tracking/identifying at a minimum the following set of events/actions as required by Federal Laws/Regulations:

o Additions, changes or deletions to data produced by IT systems o Identification and authentication processes o Actions performed by system operators, system managers, system engineers, technical support, data security officers, and system administrators o Emergency actions performed by support personnel and highly privileged system and security resources.

• Capable of monitoring all components of the System and logging/reporting specific security incidents as well as, all attempted violations of system security.