INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose
The University of Washington (UW Medicine) is seeking proposals from firms for a Radiology Order Clinical Decision Support System (CDS) to enhance the ordering of imaging examinations This system will operate through a standalone portal and integrate with EpicCare, Cerner Order Entry systems, Siemens Soarian, GE Healthcare Centricity Radiology Information System, and other relevant hospital systems.
UW Medicine currently manages total inpatient and outpatient exams in excess of $350 million per year, and radiology orders as follows:
(Nov 2009 - Oct 2010) Total UWMC HMC
High-End Studies (CT, MR, XA, NM and Pet) 134,370 78,913 55,457
Total Studies ordered via CPOE 34,524 34,524* *
High-End Studies ordered via CPOE 4,577 4,577* *
High-End studies via non-CPOE Sources 129,793
* - Both Epic (Outpatient) and Cerner (Inpatient) CPOE are being deployed across the medical centers, with the goal to have all UW domain radiology orders be entered through CPOE.
The following details the scope for the CDS system selection and deployment:
1 Ensure Appropriate Imaging with UW Medicine’s own provider-centric decision support system.
2 Educate providers on more appropriate imaging studies when appropriate to do so.
3 Allow for a flexible and phased deployment: Enable immediate Point of Service functionality in a non-intrusive way (Passive Mode from CPOE), but ultimately implement at Point of Order. Passive Mode is also known as “Shadow” or “Silent” mode.
4 Demonstrate change in utilization between pre- and post- CDS Evaluation of Radiology studies, with a convergence toward increased adherence to evidence based indications.
5 Use existing Physician Order Entry and RIS systems and workflows, so as to ensure clinician adoption Integrate CDS with existing and currently planned Electronic Medical Record (EMR) / Computer Physician Order Entry (CPOE) Systems (EpicCare and Cerner/ORCA) GE Centricity RIS, and relevant HL7 messaging to the maximum extent possible Collect required unique information in real time in order to evaluate appropriateness.
6 Provide standalone web application for use by other staff to work queues of non-appropriate Orders; or Orders sourced from outside the Cerner and Epic domain Use CDS over Radiology Benefits Management.
7 Comply and maintain compliance with ARRA and HIPAA/HITECH Acts and related legislation concerning high-end diagnostic imaging and appropriateness.
8 Meet privacy, security, and notification guidelines – electronic transactions and processes will meet appropriate confidentiality, legal and quality standards (HIPAA, URAC, etc.).
9 Support system “stops” for Inappropriate Imaging.
10 Meet utilization and other reporting requirements that satisfy federal, state, and local regulations.
11 Enable clinicians and other practitioners in collecting data on imaging selection and utilization.
12 Show defined, transparent appropriateness criteria, with supporting context.
13.Ensure institutional Gold Card from Payors Specifically, the solution put in place meets the Payor goals of controlling overutilization of imaging.
UW Medicine has identified that the success of the Clinical Decision Support (CDS) deployment hinges on a comprehensive Solution Architecture, effective Change Management, and the capabilities of an independent CDS Product Vendors participating in this RFQQ must deliver a holistic solution and demonstrate integration leadership while collaborating closely with UW staff and third-party vendors.
UW Medicine Organizations
UW Medicine is a key organization within the University of Washington, led by the Vice President for Medical Affairs, who also holds the position of Dean of the School of Medicine The structure of UW Medicine is outlined in the accompanying chart, highlighting its various components.
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA)
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
VA Puget Sound Health Group
UW Medicine collaborates closely with the State of Washington Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Program and major state payors, including Regence Blue Cross The leadership from these organizations will remain key stakeholders in the selection and deployment of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) at UW Medicine.
Acquisition Authority
Chapter 43.105 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) as amended establishes the Washington State Information Services Board (ISB) While the ISB does not purchase for agencies, it regulates the manner in which state agencies may acquire information technology equipment, software, and services. The ISB publishes policies and standards that determine when goods must be competitively acquired.
UW issues this Request for Quotations and Qualifications (RFQQ) acting under the delegated authority of the ISB.
No Master Contract
Any Contract resulting from this acquisition process will not be a Department of Information Services(“DIS”) Master Contract.
Contract Term
The initial duration of the Contract will be between three to five years, starting from the effective date UW retains the exclusive right to extend the Contract for additional one-year periods at its discretion.
Funding
Any contract awarded as a result of this procurement is contingent upon the availability of funding.
Definitions
“Apparent Successful Vendor” or “(ASV)” shall mean the Vendor who meets all the requirements of this RFQQ, and achieves the highest total score.
“Business Days” or “Business Hours” shall mean Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM, local time in Seattle, Washington, excluding Washington State holidays.
“Contract” or shall mean the RFQQ, the Response, Contract document, all schedules and exhibits, all statements of work, and all amendments awarded pursuant to this RFQQ.
“Delivery Date” shall mean the date by which the Products and Services must be delivered.
“Mandatory” or “(M)” shall mean the Vendor must comply with the requirement, and the Response will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.
“Mandatory Scored” or “(MS)” shall mean the Vendor must comply with the requirement, and the Response will be scored.
“Personal Services” shall mean professional or technical expertise provided by a consultant to accomplish a specific study, project, task, or other work statement, pursuant to chapter 39.29 RCW.
“Product(s)” shall mean anything and everything of a tangible nature, which are supplied by the Vendor.
"Purchased Services" refer to the essential functions and activities provided by the Vendor, as outlined in the Contract or Statement of Work These services are designed to support ongoing and necessary operations and are specifically defined under RCW 43.105.020.
The term "Purchaser" refers to the University of Washington, representing its academic medical division, UW Medicine This encompasses various components, including the School of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) and its outpatient clinics, Harborview Medical Center (HMC) and its outpatient clinics, Northwest Hospital and Medical Center, UW Medicine Eastside Specialties Center, the Association of University Physicians (operating as University of Washington Physicians), University of Washington Physicians Network (also known as UW Medicine Neighborhood Clinics), UW Medicine Sports Medicine Clinic, Hall Health Primary Care Center, and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance.
“RCW” means the Revised Code of Washington.
"Response(s)" refers to the written proposal provided by the Vendor to the University of Washington (UW) in alignment with this RFQQ This Response must encompass all written documentation submitted by the Vendor by the specified date in the Acquisition Schedule or as additionally requested by UW.
"Services" encompass both Personal Services and Purchased Services, referring to the offerings provided by the Vendor that pertain to solicitation, deployment, development, and implementation activities relevant to the scope of this solicitation.
"Software" refers to the object code version of computer programs licensed under the Contract, and may also include the source code version provided by the Vendor However, it excludes embedded code, firmware, internal code, microcode, and any other software necessary for the Equipment's proper operation This definition encompasses all previous, current, and future versions of the Software, along with all maintenance updates and error corrections.
“State” shall mean the state of Washington.
The "Statement of Work" (SOW) refers to the detailed document that outlines the specific services to be provided by the Vendor under the terms of the Contract with the University of Washington (UW) This statement may be included within the Contract itself or attached as a separate document, clearly defining the expectations and responsibilities of both parties involved.
A "Subcontractor" refers to an individual or entity not employed by the Vendor, engaged in providing all or part of the Services outlined in the resulting Contract through a separate agreement with the Vendor This definition encompasses Subcontractors of any tier involved in the project.
“Vendor” shall mean a company, organization, or entity submitting a Response to this RFQQ.
ADA
UW complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Vendors may contact the RFQQ
Coordinator to receive this RFQQ in Braille or on tape.
ACQUISITION SCHEDULE
Activity Due Date Due Time
Written Questions Due from Vendors February 4, 2011 1:00 PM
Local Time Written Answers Due to Vendor Questions February 11, 2011
Vendor Proposals Due February 18, 2011 1:00 PM Local Time
Conduct Oral Interviews with Finalists, if required TBD
Announce “Apparent Successful Vendor” and Send Notification via Fax or Email to Unsuccessful Vendors March 1, 2011
Optional Debriefing Requests Due March 4, 2011 1:00 PM
Hold Debriefing Conferences (if requested) March 9, 2011 1:00 PM
Contract Available for Use March 22, 2011
UW reserves the right to revise the above schedule at any time.
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
RFQQ Coordinator
After the release of this RFQQ, all Vendors must direct communications concerning this procurement to the RFQQ Coordinator listed below.
Unauthorized communication about this procurement with any State employees, except for the RFQQ Coordinator, may lead to the Vendor's disqualification Oral communications are deemed unofficial and non-binding on the University of Washington (UW), so Vendors should only trust written statements from the RFQQ Coordinator Any responses to verbal inquiries for information or clarification will also be regarded as unofficial until they are confirmed in writing.
Vendor Questions
Vendors may submit questions about this RFQQ until the deadline outlined in the Acquisition Schedule All inquiries must be directed via email to the RFQQ Coordinator, and an official written response will be provided.
UW response will be provided for Vendor questions received by this deadline Answers to Vendor questions will be posted at http://www.ga.wa.gov/webs/index.html.
The identity of the Vendor who submitted the question will remain confidential Any verbal responses provided to inquiries are deemed unofficial and non-binding Only written responses published on the website will be recognized as official and binding.
A Mandatory (M) requirement is a critical criterion that the Vendor must fulfill, with evaluations conducted on a pass/fail basis If any Mandatory requirement is not met, it may result in the disqualification of the entire Response from further evaluation.
Any of the following occurrences will constitute failure by a Vendor to meet a Mandatory requirement:
The Vendor states that a Mandatory requirement cannot be met.
The Vendor has not provided the essential information needed to demonstrate compliance with the Mandatory requirement While the Vendor can cite additional materials, the response must be comprehensive and self-sufficient.
The Vendor indicates that future developments will satisfy the requirement Only Responses that indicate present capability will meet the Mandatory requirement.
The Vendor presents the information requested by this RFQQ in a manner inconsistent with the instructions stated by any portion of this RFQQ.
Vendor references, site visits, or other investigative practices identify the Vendor’s inability to comply with one or more of the Mandatory requirements.
3.4 “Mandatory Scored Requirement” (MS) Defined
A Mandatory Scored (MS) requirement is an essential need, or a desired feature Vendors must respond to all scored requirements.
Evaluations will focus solely on the quality of the Vendor's Response to the specified requirements Evaluators will assess only the content of the Response, disregarding any prior knowledge or experiences with the Vendor, including past presentations and documentation received before the RFQQ was released.
Vendors must ensure they provide comprehensive and detailed responses to all requirements, as neglecting any Mandatory Scored requirement or receiving a score of zero can lead to disqualification from the evaluation process.
Response Presentation and Format Requirements
At the beginning of the Response, include the Vendor's name along with the representative's name, address, email address, and telephone number Ensure that all figures and tables are numbered and referenced accordingly within the text Pages should be consecutively numbered within each section, indicating both the section number and page number All Responses and any accompanying reference materials must be composed in English.
Vendors must respond to each requirement contained in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this RFQQ.
In accordance with the RFQQ, it is imperative to restate the subsection number and requirement precisely as outlined, followed by the corresponding response It is important to note that any failure by the Vendor to address a mandatory item may result in the disqualification of the entire Response from further evaluation.
Vendors must clearly state whether their proposed solution meets mandatory requirements, using explicit language An acceptable response would be, “(Vendor Name) fully complies with this requirement.”
Each of the requirements in Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 is numbered and titled Each requirement contains a designation as follows that indicates how the Vendor's Response will be evaluated as follows:
(M) Mandatory The requirement is mandatory, and the Vendor's Response will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.
(MS) Mandatory Scored The requirement is mandatory, and the Vendor’s Response will be scored.
Responses must be only based on the material contained in this RFQQ Vendors are to disregard any previous draft material and any oral representations they may have received.
Responses must be received by the RFQQ Coordinator no later than the date and time specified in the Acquisition Schedule.
Responses should be submitted electronically as email attachments to the RFQQ Coordinator's email provided in Subsection 3.1, using Microsoft products or PDF format; zipped files are not accepted The cover letter and the Certifications and Assurances form must include a scanned signature from the authorized individual representing the Vendor The University of Washington (UW) is not responsible for any email issues from the Vendor's side, but will accommodate if UW's email system is malfunctioning.
Responses may not be transmitted using facsimile transmission.
Vendors must allocate enough time for their Responses to be received by the RFQQ Coordinator, as the timestamp from the RFQQ Coordinator's email system will serve as the official record Late Responses will be disqualified unless a fault on UW’s part is identified Additionally, all Responses and related documents submitted will become the property of UW and will not be returned.
Cost of Response Preparation
UW will not reimburse Vendors for any costs associated with preparing or presenting a Response.
Response Property of UW
All submissions in response to this solicitation are owned by UW, which reserves the right to utilize any ideas included in the responses The decision to accept or reject a submission does not alter this ownership right.
Access to Data
Upon request, the Vendor shall provide UW, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, and the State Auditor with complimentary access to data generated under any resulting Contract This access encompasses all information that underpins the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Vendor's reports, including relevant computer models and their methodologies.
Public Records
UW is subject to RCW 42.56 (Public Records Act) All Vendor Responses and any subsequent Contract will be “public records” as defined in RCW 42.17.
Vendors must explicitly identify any information they consider confidential or proprietary However, marking the entire response or large sections as proprietary will not be accepted Additionally, any pricing information labeled as proprietary will not be honored by UW.
All responses submitted will be kept confidential until a contract is signed between the University of Washington (UW) and the selected vendor; after this point, the responses will be considered public records.
In accordance with RCW 42.56, the University of Washington (UW) will uphold the confidentiality of all information designated as confidential or proprietary Upon receiving a request to access the Vendor's information, UW will inform the Vendor of the request and the scheduled release date of the records, unless the Vendor secures a court order to prevent disclosure If the Vendor does not obtain such a court order, UW will proceed to release the requested information on the specified date.
Minor Administrative Irregularities
The University of Washington (UW) retains the discretion to overlook minor administrative discrepancies in Vendor Responses Furthermore, UW has the option to correct any evident mathematical errors found in the price quotations submitted by vendors.
Errors in Response
Vendors are responsible for any errors or omissions in their Responses and cannot modify these documents after the submission deadline Additionally, the University of Washington (UW) retains the right to reach out to Vendors for clarification regarding the content of their Responses.
If there is ambiguity regarding how a requirement has been met, the evaluation team, via the RFQQ Coordinator, may reach out to a Vendor for clarification on specific aspects of their Response However, Vendors are not permitted to modify their proposed items after the submission deadline.
Amendments/Addenda
UW reserves the right to change the acquisition schedule or amend the RFQQ at any time.
The University of Washington (UW) retains the authority to correct or amend any errors found in the Request for Qualifications and Quotations (RFQQ) by either UW or a vendor All modifications will be documented with date and time stamps, becoming an integral part of the RFQQ Additionally, any changes must be coordinated in writing and authorized by the RFQQ Coordinator.
All corrections and amendments to the RFQQ will be available on the website at http://www.ga.wa.gov/webs/index.html Vendors are required to regularly check the website for updates, as the University of Washington will not send notifications regarding these changes directly to them.
Points of Clarification
The University of Washington (UW) retains the authority to reach out to Vendors for clarification on any aspect of their Responses However, Vendors should not presume that inadequate answers will automatically lead to requests for clarification This right to seek clarification is solely held by UW and will only be exercised when deemed absolutely necessary.
Right to Cancel
UW reserves the right to cancel or reissue this RFQQ at any time without obligation or liability.
Vendors must demonstrate their readiness to engage in a Contract by signing the Certifications and Assurances statement in Schedule A, acknowledging the Terms and Conditions outlined in Schedule B Any specific disputes regarding these terms must be clearly stated in the Vendor's Response, as failure to do so may result in disqualification from further consideration for the Contract award at the sole discretion of UW.
The successful Vendor must sign the Contract within five (5) Business Days after receiving the final version Failure to do so may result in UW canceling the award and offering the Contract to the next highest ranked Vendor UW also reserves the right to cancel or reissue the RFQQ as outlined in Subsection 3.15 By submitting a Response to the RFQQ, the Vendor accepts these conditions.
Contract Terms and Conditions
Vendors are prohibited from submitting their own standard contract terms and conditions Instead, they must focus on the specific language outlined in Schedule B and provide any desired modifications within their Response These proposed changes should be attached to the Certification and Assurances document found in Schedule A.
The University of Washington anticipates that the final contract with the selected vendor will closely resemble the contract outlined in Schedule B However, due to the diverse nature of the products and services and the variety of responses to this RFQQ, UW reserves the right to suggest changes, removals, or additions to the contract terms during the negotiation process.
No Multiple Award
UW anticipates that only one (1) Apparent Successful Vendor will be identified via this procurement and only one (1) Contract will be awarded.
Incorporation of Documents into Contract
This solicitation document and the Response will be incorporated into any resulting Contract.
Best and Final Offer
The University of Washington (UW) retains the authority to make an award based on the submitted Response without additional discussions There will be no opportunity for a best and final offer from the selected vendor, so it is essential that the Response is presented with the most advantageous terms the vendor intends to provide.
No Costs Chargeable
No costs or charges under the proposed Contract may be incurred before the Contract is fully executed.
Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (MWBE)
The state of Washington promotes the involvement of firms certified by the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMWBE) in all contracts, as outlined in RCW 39.19 Participation can occur directly in response to solicitations or through subcontracting Importantly, the evaluation of responses will not include any preference for MWBE participation, and there is no minimum participation requirement for contract awards Responses will not be deemed non-responsive based on MWBE participation levels.
The annual procurement participation goals for Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) and Women Business Enterprises (WBE) are set at 3% each for this project type, and these goals are voluntary For details on certified firms, vendors can reach out to the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE) at 360.753.9693 or visit their website at http://www.omwbe.wa.gov.
No Obligation to Contract/Buy
The University of Washington (UW) retains the authority to choose not to engage with any vendors The issuance of this solicitation document does not commit UW to any purchases, nor does the signing of a resulting contract impose any obligation to buy.
Non-Endorsement
When choosing a vendor for products and services, UW does not endorse any specific vendor or imply that their offerings are the best solution for its needs By submitting a response, the vendor agrees not to reference UW or the state of Washington in any promotional materials or literature without prior review and written consent from UW.
Single Response
If only one vendor submits a response, the University of Washington (UW) may consider the procurement process unsuccessful and has the discretion to cancel the RFQQ Alternatively, UW may designate the sole vendor as the Apparent Successful Vendor.
Withdrawal of Response
Vendors can withdraw their submitted Responses at any point before the specified due date and time in the Acquisition Schedule To initiate the withdrawal, an authorized representative must send an email request with a scanned signature to the RFQQ Coordinator Following the withdrawal of a Response, Vendors are permitted to submit a new Response up until the submission deadline.
Announcement of Apparent Successful Vendor
All vendors participating in the procurement process will receive notification via email or fax once the Apparent Successful Vendor is selected The official announcement date for the Apparent Successful Vendor will be marked by the dispatch of the announcement letter, with the anticipated announcement date specified in the Acquisition Schedule.
Optional Vendor Debriefing
Vendors who submit a Response are eligible to request an optional debriefing conference to review the evaluation of their submission This debriefing must take place by the date outlined in the Acquisition Schedule To initiate the request, vendors should email the RFQQ Coordinator.
The optional debriefing will focus on the evaluation factors of the Response without comparing it to other submissions UW will address any questions or concerns regarding the Vendor’s performance related to the solicitation requirements These debriefing sessions can be held in person or via phone and are limited to a maximum duration of one hour.
Protest Procedures
Vendors who have submitted a Response to this RFQQ and participated in a debriefing conference are eligible to initiate protest procedures Detailed information on how to file and resolve protests can be found in Schedule C, which outlines the Protest Procedures.
Electronic Availability
The contents of this RFQQ and any amendments/addenda and written answers to questions are only available at http://www.ga.wa.gov/webs/index.html.
Covered Services
Products and Services available under any resulting Contract will be consistent with those specified in this RFQQ.
The Successful Vendor must secure insurance to safeguard UW against any claims, lawsuits, costs, or damages resulting from negligent or intentional actions by the Vendor, its Subcontractors, or their agents during the execution of work under the contract Detailed insurance requirements can be found in Schedule B of the Model Contract.
VENDOR QUALIFICATIONS
Vendors participating in this RFQQ must meet specific qualifications by supplying comprehensive details for all Mandatory (M) and Mandatory Scored (MS) requirements It is essential to present the information in the precise order outlined in this section.
Vendors should include essential information in their Responses that enhances service delivery and offers a competitive edge UW prefers concise and clear Responses over overly conceptual ones Responses that directly address the specific requirements will be prioritized.
Responses to this section must be standalone in order to facilitate evaluation and scoring.
4.1 (M) Vendor Status as a Washington State Business
The Apparent Successful Vendor must agree to register with the Washington State Department of Revenue The Vendor must also agree to collect and report all applicable State sales taxes.
Vendor must acknowledge and agree to the above requirement.
Vendors are responsible for fulfilling the requirements of this RFQQ and any resulting contract If a Vendor intends to utilize a Subcontractor, they must submit a written request to UW for approval before finalizing any agreement This process ensures that UW maintains a single point of accountability for all aspects related to the contract derived from this RFQQ.
In order to achieve integration with other products, or the best combination of experience and skill,
Strategic relationships, including subcontractor arrangements and advisors, must be established within the framework of a subcontractor to the Vendor, except for existing Vendor systems under agreement with UW Medicine, such as Epic, Cerner, Cloverleaf, and GE Centricity The Vendor is required to act as the prime contractor and accept full liability for the performance of any proposed subcontractor.
When proposing any relationships with Subcontractors, the Vendor must detail the nature of the Subcontractor's relationship, including past experiences It is essential to outline the organizational structure of the Subcontractor, as well as the management and reporting dynamics between the Vendor and the Subcontractor.
Also, for each Subcontractor relationship, provide the profile information stated in Subsection 4.7 and the financial information stated in Subsection 4.8.
State the total percentage of performance hours to be subcontracted and the nature of the work to be performed If no subcontracting is intended, so declare.
Vendors are required to disclose whether they have an established presence in Washington State If a Vendor does have a physical location in the state, they must provide the address and phone number for each site.
The Vendor must list two (2) engagements that closely relate to the Products and Services described in this RFQQ.
1 The Vendor must provide a concise description of each engagement in two (2) pages or less including its role, scope, service deliverables, timeframe, and final status.
2 The Vendor must describe solution architecture, and include information about the technical as well as the clinical implementation details.
3 The Vendor must describe the implementation workflow.
4 The Vendor must also include these service engagements as part of their Response to Subsection 4.14.
The Vendor must describe in two (2) pages or less its:
1 History, position in the marketplace, and strategy for the future as it relates to providing the
Product and Services specified in this RFQQ.
2 The Vendor must also describe its business practices and experiences working with: a large enterprises with semi-autonomous business units b public agencies c higher education institutions
The Vendor should clearly outline how its business and technology services offer unique advantages that set it apart from competitors These distinctions not only enhance the overall customer experience but also deliver tangible benefits, such as improved efficiency and cost savings By leveraging these competitive advantages, customers can expect to achieve superior outcomes and gain a significant edge in their respective markets.
The Vendor must provide the following information:
4.7.1.Name, Address, and Telephone Number of the Legal Entity
Provide the name, address, telephone number, and fax number of the legal entity with whom UW may execute any Contract(s) arising from this procurement.
The legal status of the vendor can vary, including options such as a corporation, limited liability company (LLC), partnership, or sole proprietorship, each defined by its state of incorporation or registration It is essential to provide the vendor's Federal Employer Tax Identification Number (EIN) and the Washington State Uniform Business Identification (UBI) number for proper identification and compliance.
4.7.3.Name, Address, and Telephone Number of Principal Officers and Account Manager
Furnish the firm’s name, address, email address, telephone number, and fax number of the principal officers and the proposed account manager for any Contract arising from this procurement.
4.7.4.Name and Relationship of Partners, other Vendors, OEM Suppliers relevant to this Quotation
Please list all companies and legal relationship with those companies whose products and services are proposed as part of this Quotation.
The Vendor is required to submit the name, address, telephone number, and email address of the Chief Financial Officer Additionally, a concise evaluation of the company's financial condition, not exceeding two pages, should be included, along with any plans that may impact future financial performance.
The Vendor is required to disclose if it has been subject to the "Order Requiring the Filing of Sworn Statements Pursuant to Section 21(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934" (File No 4-460, dated June 27).
In accordance with the requirements set forth by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 2002, if the Vendor is obligated to submit a statement to the SEC, it must include a copy of this statement in its Response to the RFQQ.
4.9 (MS) Commitment to Product Growth
UW Medicine desires a Vendor who is actively advancing Product and implementing new features.
How many engineering/programming resources work full-time on the development of the CDS product? Quality Assurance for this product? Do not include management, sales, or other support staff.
4.10 (MS) Staffing, Qualifications, and Skills
The Vendor must describe its proposed service organization and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience of the team members.
The proposed service organization will be managed through a structured team approach, ensuring effective service delivery while coordinating with any subcontractors involved We will outline the management strategies that will be employed to maintain seamless communication and oversight throughout the project If subcontractors are utilized, we will specify the duration of our partnership and detail the number of prior engagements we have successfully completed together, showcasing our collaborative experience and reliability in delivering quality services.
Provide the name, title, email address, and phone number of the individual responsible for service delivery Clearly indicate who within the organization will hold primary responsibility and final authority for the services outlined in the proposed contract.
To ensure effective service delivery, it is essential to clearly define the responsibilities and qualifications of the assigned staff This includes providing resumes that detail their specific skill sets, professional certifications, educational background, relevant experience, notable achievements, and any other important information that highlights their capabilities.
The candidate must showcase proven experience collaborating with hospitals on Radiology activities, including at least six months of delivering Clinical Decision Support system solutions Additionally, they should have a track record of successfully implementing interfaces with existing hospital clinical systems It is essential to list the hospital clinical system vendors that have been integrated with the proposed product.
TECHNICAL & FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
This section outlines the Technical Requirements for the RFQQ, emphasizing that vendors must supply comprehensive details for all Mandatory (M) and Mandatory Scored (MS) requirements It is essential to present all requested information in the specified order, ensuring that each response corresponds to the relevant section and numbered list item.
To ensure successful service delivery, each requirement outlines a specific item that must be addressed UW prefers concise and clear vendor responses that directly meet these specific requirements, rather than highly conceptual answers.
Responses to this section must be standalone in order to facilitate evaluation and scoring.
All proposed products must be commercially available by the Response due date outlined in Section 2 Vendors must clearly indicate if any products are in alpha, beta, or pre-release stages and provide details on their development and testing status The University of Washington reserves the right to determine the acceptability of these products.
5.1 (MS) Radiology Order Decision Support Objectives
Vendor must describe how the proposed Radiology Order Decision Support (CDS) System will achieve all objectives listed below.
1 Ensure Appropriate Imaging with UW Medicine’s own provider-centric decision support system.
2 Educate providers on more appropriate imaging studies when appropriate to do so.
Implement a flexible and phased deployment strategy by initially enabling immediate Point of Service functionality through Passive Mode, also referred to as "Shadow" or "Silent" mode This approach allows for non-intrusive integration while ultimately transitioning to full implementation at the Point of Order.
4 Demonstrate change in utilization between pre- and post- CDS Evaluation of Radiology studies with a convergence toward increased adherence to evidence based indications.
To ensure clinician adoption of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems, it is crucial to leverage existing Physician Order Entry (POE) and Radiology Information Systems (RIS) workflows Integrating CDS with current and planned Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) systems, such as EpicCare and Cerner/ORCA, as well as GE Centricity RIS, is essential Additionally, maximizing the use of relevant HL7 messaging and collecting unique information in real time will facilitate the evaluation of appropriateness in clinical decision-making.
Develop a standalone web application that enables staff to manage queues of non-appropriate orders and those sourced from outside the Cerner and Epic systems Utilize Clinical Decision Support (CDS) in conjunction with Radiology Benefits Management for optimal results.
7 Comply and maintain compliance with ARRA and HIPAA/HITECH Acts and related legislation concerning high-end diagnostic imaging and appropriateness.
8 Meet privacy, security, and notification guidelines – electronic transactions and processes will meet appropriate confidentiality, legal and quality standards (HIPAA, URAC, etc.).
9 Support system “stops” for Inappropriate Imaging.
10 Meet utilization and other reporting requirements that satisfy federal, state, and local regulations.
11 Enable clinicians and other practitioners in collecting data on imaging selection and utilization.
12 Show defined, transparent appropriateness criteria, with supporting context.
13.Ensure institutional Gold Card from Payors Specifically, the solution put in place meets the Payor goals of controlling overutilization of imaging.
UW Medicine's Requirements Gathering and Product Reviews have highlighted that the success of the Clinical Decision Support (CDS) deployment relies on comprehensive Solution Architecture and effective Change Management, rather than just the capabilities of an individual CDS product Vendors responding to this RFQQ must demonstrate their ability to provide overall solution and integration leadership while collaborating closely with UW personnel and third-party vendors.
5.2 (MS) Overall Solution Architecture and Deployment Phasing
The vendor is required to evaluate and respond to the proposed Solution Architecture, detailing all Software Products and modules included in their solution and explaining how these components align with the objectives outlined in this RFQQ.
To enhance physician adoption and establish a baseline for deployment, UW Medicine is proposing a phased Solution Architecture The organization is receptive to suggestions for improvements or alternative methods, as long as they meet the objectives outlined in this RFQQ.
1 Initially do not disrupt existing physician ordering workflow Do not present data entry screens from another system (the CDS).
Deploy the system as a Point of Service rather than a Point of Order by making web API calls from Epic and Cerner CPOE systems, as well as Siemens Soarian Ensure that all relevant data, including patient information, proposed procedures, diagnoses, symptoms, previous exams, and abnormalities, is included in the API calls.
3 Order should be evaluated with return code and relevant data elements (score, Decision Support Number) passed back to CPOE with no CDS screen interaction (aforementioned “passive” mode).
In the initial phase, UW Medicine aims for back-office staff, including schedulers and financial clearance clerks, to monitor all non-appropriate studies through CDS work queues and collaborate with ordering physicians as necessary The goal is to successfully evaluate 75% of orders on the first attempt, while 25% may require additional processing.
5 Preserve existing workflow: when protocoling or radiologists correct an order, RIS generates message to CPOE which triggers automated re-order.
In the next phase, known as the Point of Order, present the evaluation response, which includes the numeric score and classifications such as Inappropriate, Indeterminate, Moderate, and Appropriate If needed, the ordering physician should cancel and recreate the procedure using the CPOE system.
To implement Clinical Decision Support (CDS) effectively, it is essential to establish user role permissions and configuration granularity This approach allows for a controlled rollout of CDS, enabling a passive or Point of Service mode for specific procedures, physicians, clinics, or areas, while simultaneously supporting an active mode for others.
As systems, data elements, and HL7 message integration for Reg/ADT are finalized, it is crucial for physicians to embrace workflow changes by exclusively utilizing Point of Order and discontinuing non-clinician CDS updates Vendors should outline strategies for integrating Epic, Cerner, and CDS to streamline order workflows, determining whether orders should always be created or canceled in CPOE, or if CDS and CPOE should be synchronized through peer-to-peer reconciliation.
Utilize real-time web service calls with a clearinghouse to present payor, plan, and eligibility information from the Clinical Decision Support (CDS) system This approach facilitates immediate access to eligibility and payment policy rules, enhancing real-time counseling and informed decision-making.
10.Accommodate multiple medical institutions: Seattle Children’s, HMC, Northwest Hospital, SCCA, UWMC, and UWPN clinics.
11 Consolidate and maintain a non-redundant pool of Patients and Providers.
12.Accommodate Washington State Labor & Industries reporting requirements.