Technical Evaluation Criteria.pdf

MHC Non-Personal Family Nurse Practitioner

SF-1449 continued, page 3 of 24

EVALUATION CRITERIA

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

(1) FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will award a Fixed-Price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to this solicitation; will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers in descending order of importance:

1. Technical Qualifications o Documentation must be included with the proposal detailing the following for each profile provided:

Nurse Practitioner licensure in a family nurse practitioner Master’s Degree program or a formal post graduate family nurse practitioner track or program within a school of nursing granting graduate level academic credit. Program must have included didactic and clinical components. Evidence of successful completion by certificate or letter from the program director.

Evidence of full unrestricted and current active Registered Nurse (RN) license in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory of the United States (US) during the term of this contract.

Candidate who has 12 months of clinical experience and expertise in the Family NP area of specialization in the last 5 years.

Medical Liability Insurance: Provide proof of current medical liability insurance carried in the minimum amount of One (1) million dollars per occurrence and Three (3) million-dollar aggregate.

Candidate who can provide onsite support.

Candidate with clinical skills and digital literacy.

3 References or letters of recommendation. At least 2 of the references must be professional.

2. Past Performance o Contractor must provide documentation of a minimum of 3-5 past years’ successful experience in providing same/similar type of services detailing the following:

SF-1449 continued, page 4 of 24

Documentation must be included with proposal detailing a minimum of three (3) years’ experience and maintain competency to perform diagnosis, care and treatment of Indian Health Service Beneficiaries relative to the specific medical disciplines.

o The government reserves the right to verify this information through the use of reference checks and CPARs reviews.

3. Availability o Contractor must provide no less than 3 candidate profiles for review/selection who will work under the eventual contract if awarded and include all requested documentation for each.

4. Price

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award a Fixed-Price contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to this solicitation; will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical Qualifications; (2) Past Performance; (3) Availability; (4) Price

EXCEPTIONS TAKEN TO ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN THIS SOLICITATION.

Complete rationale, justification, and cost impact must be included. The Government advises Offerors that it intends to evaluate quotations and award a contract without discussions.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

• Technical evaluation will apply all of the following evaluation factors to the Offeror's technical proposal and to any teaming arrangements proposed.

• The acceptability or unacceptability of the technical portion of each proposal will be determined through an evaluation by a Source Selection Team.

• The Committee will evaluate each proposal in strict conformity with the evaluation criteria of this solicitation, using the adjectival rating system identified below. The Committee may suggest that the Contracting Officer request clarifying information from an Offeror.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Exceptional Greatly exceeds all minimum requirements of the criteria; has a high probability of success; contains no weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Exceeds all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an above average probability of success; contains no significant weaknesses and only minor correctable weaknesses exist.

SF-1449 continued, page 5 of 24

Acceptable Meets all the minimum requirements of the criteria; has an average probability of success; no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies.

Marginal Fails to meet one or more of the minimum requirements of the criteria; low probability of success; major weaknesses and/or significant number of deficiencies exists.

Unacceptable Fails to meet any of the minimum requirements of the criteria; proposal needs major revisions; very low probability of success.

QUALIFICATION OF PROPOSED KEY PERSONNEL

• The qualifications of the key personnel assigned to the contract should include the following:

academic, professional, and work experiences as related to the type of requirements stated in the statement of work. The proposal should include a description of each position proposed under this contract, and specify the qualifications of the person(s).

• The proposal should specify the relevant background and experience of key staff for their work in areas of relevance to this contract.

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

• Evaluate the Offerors ability to demonstrate 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.

PRICE EVALUATION

• Evaluate the price proposal to determine the Offeror’s ability to understand the nature and extent of the requirement. The price evaluation will not be point scored. The total price of each contract line item shall be added together to arrive at an overall total. The evaluation of options year done by adding all option totals together for an overall total; this will then be evaluated for overall price reasonableness. Offerors must include the formulas and factors used in calculation of the data.

• Evaluating the Offeror’s capability to fulfill the tasks in the SOW as well as the contractor's experience and education will be the most important. However, the Offeror should propose a blend of seasoned staff and trainable staff to provide IHS with the best blend and cost associated with the effort.

RESPONSIBILITY

• To be eligible for an award, an Offeror must be determined responsible in accordance with the standards in FAR Part 9.104.

AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS & COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATIONS

• The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. A competitive range determination occurs where there are discussions. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

SF-1449 continued, page 6 of 24

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

RATING FACTORS

• All offers evaluated in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. Technical evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance. The Technical Evaluation Team will identify strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

• Factors listed in descending order of importance, as technical ratings and relative advantages and disadvantages become less distinct, difference in price between proposals are of increased importance in determining the most advantageous proposal. Conversely, as differences in price become less distinct, differences in rating and relative advantages and disadvantages between proposals are of increased importance to the determination.

• The technical evaluation arrived through a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. Technical risks will be included in the final evaluation of each factor but not evaluated as a separate factor. In the assessment of technical risk, the Government evaluators will consider all available information.

AWARD

• A single firm fixed priced contract will be made on a best value basis; both price and other factors considered. An award will be made only in the event that the Offeror's proposal is found to be technically acceptable, based upon the evaluation criteria, and the Offeror is determined responsive and responsible in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.