This is a Small Business Sources Sought notice (SBSS). This is NOT a solicitation for proposals, proposal abstracts, or quotations. The purpose of this notice is to obtain information regarding: (1) the availability and capability of qualified small business sources; (2) whether they are small business; HUBZone small businesses; service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses; 8(a) small businesses; veteran-owned small businesses; woman-owned small businesses; or small disadvantaged businesses; and (3) their size classification relative to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for the proposed acquisition. Your responses to the information requested will assist the Government in determining the appropriate acquisition method, including whether a set-aside is possible. An organization that is not considered a small business under the applicable NAICS code should not submit a response to this notice.

Project Description and Requirements

A multiple award IDIQ type contract is anticipated.

An Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC)/IDIQ contract holder responds to requests for task order from AHRQ to conduct various types of evidence synthesis using a scientifically rigorous, transparent, and unbiased approach. The evidence synthesis products are clearly written and useful for various end-users.

EPCs produce various types of evidence reports including systematic reviews, scoping reviews/evidence maps, living reviews, rapid reviews, and qualitative evidence synthesis. The reviews focus on a range of topics, including treatment effectiveness and harms, prevention, healthcare delivery, models of care, health equity, and implementation concerns. They cover a wide range of medical specialties that include primary care, oncology, endocrinology, cardiology, infectious disease, rehabilitation medicine, urology, behavioral health, nutrition, as well as maternal and child health. Regardless of their planned use and content, EPCs strive to produce reports that are responsive to the needs of their eventual end-users.

EPC Program Partners

EPCs synthesize evidence for a range of partners to translate into practice and policy to improve patient care and outcomes. Users of EPC reports include Federal agencies, guideline developers, clinicians, patients, policymakers, research funders, knowledge translators, and purchasers and payers of healthcare. EPC work has been the scientific foundation for development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines, review criteria, performance measures, other clinical quality improvements efforts, individual treatment decisions, coverage and other policies, and research agendas that lead to research funding opportunities.

• Public Nominators. EPC Program partners include clinical groups who use EPC reports to inform clinical guidance; insurers to inform coverage decisions; funders to inform future research priorities; health systems to inform guidance and implementation activities; and patients to inform healthcare decisions. Through a nomination process through a publicly-accessible website, the EPC Program accepts suggestions for evidence review topics on a continuous basis.
• US Congress. The United States Congress commissions evidence reports from the EPC Program. These evidence products may inform future legislation on healthcare delivery for specific diseases and conditions of interest or interventions aimed at addressing these.
• Federal Agencies and Government-funded Organizations The EPCs also synthesize evidence for a variety of other Federal agencies. These reviews have informed clinical guidance, policies, and future research. The EPC Program has a number of long-standing partnerships with other Federal agencies and groups. We discuss these groups below.
  • US Preventive Services Task Force - The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent, volunteer panel of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine. USPSTF members use the EPC evidence report as the basis for their assessment of the effectiveness of the preventive service under consideration.
  • NIH Pathways to Prevention Program - EPCs produce evidence reports that support the NIH Pathways to Prevention (P2P) Program (https://prevention.nih.gov/research-priorities/research-needs-and-gaps/pathways-prevention) of the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP). Through P2P Workshops and EPC evidence reports, an expert panel develops a research agenda pertinent to disease prevention topics and develops action plans to move the field forward.
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute - EPCs produce evidence reports that support Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), the leading funder of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research in the United States (https://www.pcori.org/impact/evidence-synthesis-reports-and-interactive-visualizations/pcori-ahrq-systematic-reviews). PCORI has provided funding for EPC reports to identify areas for investments in CER, to support guidelines for clinical groups, and dissemination and implementation efforts.

Overview of project tasks and requirements:

EPCs must be able to respond to multiple Requests for Task Order (RFTOs) for the full complement of EPC report types, including but not limited to:

• Topic Development Brief. After a topic is nominated, the EPC shall evaluate the topic against established criteria. The EPC shall prepare a topic development brief describing the nomination, the clinical decisional dilemma, and how it fits in the current clinical and research context along with how it fits with established criteria. A related product, topic development brief for the USPSTF focuses on the feasibility of developing a recommendation for the USPSTF.
• Topic Refinement. The EPC shall develop focused key questions that address the decisional dilemma(s) which are amenable to a systematic review with key informant input and input from the public. The finalized questions will be the basis for the following systematic review.
• Systematic Reviews. EPCs shall use rigorous, comprehensive methods to address the type of question and decisional dilemma, volume and type of literature available and to maximize efficiency and rigor. The methods used for individual systematic reviews are generally established by the EPC Methods Guide and more specifically by the individual protocol. Systematic reviews include qualitative and/or quantitative analysis, such as with meta-analysis or meta-regression. Other emerging qualitative or quantitative approaches may also be appropriate, such as network meta-analysis or qualitative comparative analysis.
• Systematic Review Update. When an update is deemed appropriate, the EPC shall update the previous review protocol; conduct an updated search; and provide an updated report that includes a summary of the updated evidence and a description of what it adds to the original review.
• Living review. After the completion of an evidence review, there are scheduled monthly searches with reporting of the findings of the searches between 2-6 times per year. This reporting includes the number of studies included, ROB assessment, and updated conclusions and strength of evidence grading.
• Technical Brief (or Scoping Review or Mapping Review). Through a Technical Brief, the EPC provides an overview of key issues related to an emerging medical technology or healthcare intervention, such as current indications, relevant patient populations and subgroups of interest, outcomes measured, and contextual factors that may affect decisions regarding the intervention, but does not synthesize studies or grade the strength of evidence of findings. Technical Briefs gather information from interviews with Key Informants and the gray literature, as well as from the published literature.
• Rapid Response. A rapid response provides a summary of the best available evidence, usually from guidelines or systematic reviews. The approach and scope of this product is similar to that of a topic development brief, and may also include peer review.
• Rapid Review. A rapid review is a type of systematic review that provides an answer to a question around where there is an urgent decisional need. However, the methods may be adapted, or the scope may be restricted to produce a report that can be completed more rapidly.
• Decision-analysis, modelling, or economic studies. The task of decision-analysis, modeling, and clinical economic studies in the context of systematic review involves the identification of key research and decisional questions in the analytical framework that need to be answered by the modeling effort, the extraction and integration of relevant data and parameters from various literature sources obtained in the systematic review process, and the identification of additional data and parameters that may be specific to the modeling process (e.g. resource utilization associated with a clinical intervention being studied in the SR).

EPCs must also be able to perform methodological work to improve the validity and utility of evidence synthesis methods for decision-making and practice. EPCs work in collaboration on methods projects, and participate in the methodological review and peer review process to promote the consistency and quality of EPC review products. EPCs meet regularly through in person and virtual meetings, as well as through workgroup calls to collectively identify challenges and areas for improvement and work collaboratively to improve methods and consistency across the EPC Program as a whole.

Other Important Considerations:
EPC reports are complex, requiring familiarity and adherence to AHRQ policies and procedures, including a range of procedural and methods guides for the EPC program and the USPSTF. This IDIQ will have a high volume of requirements and potential respondents will need to have the capacity to respond to RFTOs released simultaneously or within a short period of time and respond to those requests within a short period of time.

Anticipated Period of Performance

November 2024 - November 2029

Capability Information Sought

Capabilities necessary to fulfill this requirement include:

• Evidence synthesis expertise and experience, with contribution to evidence synthesis methods
• Library science
• Project and program management
• Statistical expertise, specifically in evidence synthesis
• Stakeholder engagement
• Experience working with a range of end-users including guideline developers and other clinical groups, policymakers, Federal agencies, advocacy groups, health systems, research funders, and patients
• Medical writer
• Expertise in other evidence synthesis methods such as qualitative evidence synthesis
• Access to a broad range clinical and content expertise in areas such as
  • Prevention science
  • Health equity
  • Healthcare delivery models and processes
  • Mental health conditions
  • Maternal health
  • Nutrition

The capability statement response to this Small Business Sources Sought notice should include the following information:

1. Understanding of the appropriate role and limitations of evidence synthesis in relationship to improving health care practice and delivery for the EPC program
2. Staff expertise, including their availability, experience, and formal and other training;
3. Current in-house capability and capacity to perform the work;
4. Corporate experience and information on prior projects of similar size and complexity;
5. List any Government wide contracting vehicle for which the respondent has a contract (example, GSA schedule, etc).

Information Submission Instructions

Interested qualified small business organizations should submit a tailored capability statement for this requirement.

The cover page must include the following:

• UEI number
• Organization name
• Organization address
• Size and type of business (e.g., 8(a), HUBZone, etc.) pursuant to NAICS code 541715.
• Technical point(s) of contact, including names, titles, addresses, telephone, and e-mail addresses.

All Capability Statements sent in response to this SMALL BUSINESS SOURCES SOUGHT notice must be submitted electronically (via e-mail) to Scott Henderson, Contract Specialist, scott.henderson@ahrq.hhs.gov in MS Word, or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF), no later than 5:00 PM on January, 5, 2024. Responses should not exceed 20 single-sided pages (including the cover page, all attachments, resumes, charts, etc.) presented in single-space and using a 12-point font size minimum, that clearly details the ability to perform the aspects of the notice described above.

Disclaimer and Important Notes

This notice does not obligate the Government to award a contract or otherwise pay for the information provided in response. The Government reserves the right to use information provided by respondents for any purpose deemed necessary and legally appropriate. Any organization responding to this notice should ensure that its response is complete and sufficiently detailed to allow the Government to determine the organization’s qualifications to perform the work. Respondents are advised that the Government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. After a review of the responses received, a pre-solicitation synopsis and solicitation may be published in SAM.gov. However, responses to this notice will not be considered adequate responses to a solicitation.

Confidentiality

No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response. The Government reserves the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant solicitation(s).

Attachments/Links