Banking RFP Addendum 4 tech eval Final

Addendum 4 – Page 1 of 2

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION FACTORS

The offeror ‘s proposal submission shall consist of a limited written Technical Proposal as described below, and a Business Proposal consisting of the offeror’s proposed prices for the items listed in Addendum 3 for Workload A and/or B. In addition, the offeror shall submit their commercial pricing schedule(s).

The Technical Proposal shall be limited to 25 pages. Paper size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Fold-outs will count as two pages. The pages shall be numbered and printed on both sides if possible. Type size shall not be less than a 12-point font with a space and a half between lines. Offerors are cautioned that any pages of the proposal exceeding the 25 page limit will not be reviewed or evaluated.

The following Technical Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

1) Technical Understanding of the Banking Requirement. The offeror shall be evaluated based on the degree to which it demonstrates a technical understanding of the requirements of the SOW. In making the evaluation, the Government shall consider an offeror’s understanding of the SOW in terms of the concept, purpose, importance, salient operational procedures and inherent problems with respect to the business processes set forth in the SOW.

2) Implementation Approach. The offeror shall include an Implementation Plan that presents their approach to transitioning the number of Medicare claims processing contractors in Workload A and/or Workload B within the 90 day timeframe specified in the SOW. The implementation Plan shall include at a minimum, the following items: 1) Connectivity; 2) Testing; 3) File Exchange; 4) Security; 5) Staffing; 6) Risk Management; 7) Ability to obtain Letter of Credit; and 8) Verification of compliance with Department of Treasury electronic banking requirements.

The Implementation Plan shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstration of it capabilities to establish the necessary systems, telecommunications, infrastructure, software, staffing, and security policies to meet the requirements in the SOW. The effectiveness and efficiency of the Implementation Plan shall also be evaluated to ensure that it is administratively feasible in the CMS Medicare contractor environment and that it addresses all the tasks required in the SOW.

3) Past Performance. The Government’s evaluation shall be a subjective assessment based on the contract references of those projects identified by the offeror in its proposal and information obtained independently by CMS from a variety of public or private sources. The Government’s evaluation shall be based on the extent, depth, and quality of past performance within the last three (3) years in performing the same or similar work as anticipated under this contract.

The Government’s evaluation of the quality and content of the offeror’s past performance is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.

Addendum 4 – Page 2 of 2 Performance shall be based on the extent to which the offeror has demonstrated, under contracts of a similar nature, scope, and complexity, its ability to successfully meet the requirements of the SOW. The government shall inquire about the following three elements which are of equal importance in the evaluation.

A) Quality of Service - Compliance with contract requirements; customer satisfaction; proactive, effective, and efficient contractor recommended solutions; timeliness of notification of problems; effective and responsive reactions to customer/provider inquiries; and effective and prompt responses to technical, service, and administrative issues.

B) Timeliness of Performance - Demonstrated adherence to the contract schedule, including transition/implementation activities and contract administrative activities; the offeror’s history of significant performance penalties and the offeror’s achievement of an award fee, if any.

C) Business Relations - Delivery of effective and efficient management and business practices that are responsive to all contract requirements; reasonable and cooperative behavior in working with the government and other contractors; flexibility; and an effective and efficient small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program, etc. Business practices include responsive and accurate financial reporting, efficient and effective control systems. Business relations also include timely award and management of subcontracts.

An offeror without a record of past performance shall receive a neutral rating for past performance; that is, the offeror shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for past performance.

4) Organizational Structure and Management Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed overview of its organizational structure and management approach that demonstrates how the offeror shall accomplish the tasks required in the SOW as well as how it shall facilitate the ongoing coordination and communication with CMS and the Medicare contractors. The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s organizational structure and management approach to ensure that the offeror has clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of all staff and business partners and can effectively execute the tasks required in the SOW according to the required timetable.