1

Request for proposal

Rouse (2007) defined request for proposal (RFP) as a document generated by an organization

with the view to eliciting bids from potential vendors who have the capabilities to develop a business

component or a system that provides specific services for the organization. According to O’Caroll et al.

(2010), to generate an efficient RFP an organization must have a clearly stated requirement definition.

O’Caroll et al. (2010) opined requirement definition should not be restricted to only the “build

strategy,” rather it should apply to all strategies. This is important because, when RFP compares two

vendors, we also draw comparison in the product; on the other hand, RFP can apply in which vendor’s

product is compared with the needs of the organization, a situation, which falls out of place with the

requirement definition (O’Caroll et al. 2010). Organizations, which choose the first strategy, discover

the selected product did not meet their requirements, whereas companies that adopt the later strategy

are better off, since the vendor will be responsible for meeting all the requirements as documented in

the RFP (O’Caroll et al. 2010). It is also important to get a clear requirement definition since a

requirement if not clearly defined, may not generate a system that meets the needs of the organization.

Although the California prison health care receiver (CHCR) RFPs (2008) for instance, involved a

different health/privacy and security information technology system, correlations can be drawn from it

in developing immunization database-related RFP for the State of Texas. Linkins (O’Caroll et al. 2010)

defined immunization registry as a computerized population-based, confidential information system

that contains children’s vaccination data. From this definition, it will be necessary also to pay attention

to privacy and security when designing or creating RFP for the system. Before setting out to generate

RFP, there must be project manager(s) who play the role of the “receiver” as in the case of CHCR

scenario, who must be knowledgeable in handling public health protocols in association with

immunization registry-related RFP, for the state of Texas. The project manager must first identify the
 2

need for the system as in, what will the new software do for the immunization registry that is not going

on currently (Yasnoff, 2008). In that instance there is need to create software that can generate

information on immunization of children 0 – 6 years old from their providers offices. The information

so generated can be accessed by other providers, school nurses, county/state health departments, via

interface technology network, which creates a coordinated healthcare approach for the interest of the

patients and ease of work for providers and public health professionals (O’ Carol et al. 2010).

According to Linkins, “Immunization Registries: Critical Tools for Sustaining Success” (O’Caroll et al.

2010), the Center for disease control and prevention (CDC), in concert with state and local health

departments, private/public provider groups, vendors and those involved in setting national standards,

take the lead in the implementation and maintenance of standards in relations to efficient immunization

registries. Some of the technical and operational challenges involve: Definitions of essential registry

function/core data elements, certification of clinical support functions/registry’s ability to consolidate

multiple data from different sources on one child, and enable safe interface technology capabilities for

inter-/intra – information exchange systems as in the HL7 technology (O’Caroll et al. 2010). These

factors, along with recipient/provider participation, funding, stakeholders and full user participations,

are central areas for consideration in the process of generating an RFP.          

Drawing from the State of California prison facilities health records experience, an RFP aimed at

enhancing the immunization registry systems for the State of Texas, should include the following

outline:

A.

I.       Request

II.     Background
 3

III.    Scope of services anticipated:

1.      general scopes of services

2.      detailed scope of services –

·        establishing leadership/management parameters

·        establishing policies/procedures that maintain the integrity and

confidentiality for immunization records within the state of Texas

·        ensuring appropriate infrastructures and staff participation to see to the

continuity of the health records within the registry

·        evaluating possibilities of automating immunization records among the

various healthcare providers, county health departments and the state of Texas

(California prison health care receivership corporation [CPHCRC] 2008)

IV.    Deliverables – Deliverables deal with written expectations required of the vendor in the whole

process. They incorporate the approved work plan along with the staffing plan, and schedules. It should

be within the discretion of the management to allocate appropriate timeframe for project completion,

and for all deliverables to be the property of the state of Texas immunization registry (CPHCRC, 2008;

Yasnoff, 2008).

1.      The key deliverables include:

·        best practices and regulatory analysis

·        the Texas health information management assessment

·        provision of remediation road map, master project plan

 4

·        management of registry database operations

·        transition plan management

·        management of transition

B.     Other requirements expected of the vendor will include:

·        Opening and staffing an operational field office in Texas all through the

duration of the project.

·        Lead an initial meeting that discusses vital issues regarding the project.

C.     Organization and direction

V.     Process of selection

VI.    Criteria for proposal evaluation:

·        Proven capabilities of respondents

·        demonstration of clear understanding of knowledge regarding what is at

stake

·        demonstration of abilities to handle challenges

·        ability to articulate clear project approach and plan

·        presentation of reasonable budget and services which are commensurate to

the budget

·        demonstration of complete and comprehensive response to RFP presented

 ·        oral interview performance

·        any outstanding legal action that may hinder respondent from performing his

duties

·        absence of any relationships between respondent and Texas immunization

registries which may pose conflict of interest

VII.  Requirements for submittal:

·        Schedule of RFP – (a) event, (b)date

·        addenda

·        format

·        contents – (a) cover letter, (b) executive summary, (c) qualification

demonstration, (d) references, (e) technical personnel qualifications, (f) proposed scope

of practice changes, (g) outstanding legal action, (h) prior default termination (i)

conflict of interest, (j) estimated cost for project, and (k) phase of project pertaining to

management services

·        Proposal modification or withdrawal

·        public opening

·        general rules

·        reservation rights

Jernigan, Davies & Sim (O’Caroll et al. 2010) question review stressing on “Data standards in

public health informatics” stressed the importance of unifying children’s immunization data from their
provider offices and through the application of HL7 interface technology and standardization system,

permit interchange of immunization information among providers, the counties and the state public

health departments. Kitch & Yasnoff “Assessing the value of information system” (O’Caroll et al.

2010) provided a requirement definition for the process relating information system project to a “jigsaw

puzzles,” an analytical process which must meet an appropriate definition to be successful. A

requirement definition must address the issue of scope with progressive refine as it goes through

delineation process (Kitch & Yasnoff, 2010). The requirement steps will involve the vendor describing

the methodology he is going to use for the design, and also discuss the program, the program test,

system test, the installation/conversion processes, and various training stages involved (Kitch &

Yasnoff, 2010). Following the launching of immunization registries initiative lead by the national

vaccine advisory committee (NVAC), members of the initiative workgroup comprising representatives

of provider associations, managed care plans, parents, county/state health departments, met and

examined four critical issues pertaining to immunization registry development. They paid attention to

individual privacy and confidentiality of information, tackling challenges stemming from technical and

operational levels and making sure that providers and recipients participated in the registry, while

ensuring surveillance and maintenance of the immunization registries (Linkins, O’Carol al. 2010).    

Immunization registry has proven to keep track of children’s immunization histories, thus

preventing the problem of over- or under- immunization of kids. It has also shown to facilitate

information sharing among healthcare providers and public health agencies (Jernigan, Davies & Sim

(O’Caroll et al. 2010). However, there are special considerations that come into play, in view of the

broad-paced nature of the database system and its vulnerabilities, hackers can invade its privacy to steal

people’s information for selfish reasons. Personal information may not just be restricted to health

records alone it may extend to getting hold of individual’s telephone number, age, address, and even
social security number. Companies and insurance agencies could use health information obtained from

the registry to deny the affected individual job and health insurance coverage respectively. For these

reasons, it becomes necessary that in building immunization registry, there should be utmost

considerations to protecting the privacy of every participant in the system (Jernigan, Davies & Sim

(O’Caroll et al. 2010). Linkins, in “Protecting the Privacy of Individuals and the Confidentiality of

Information” (O’Caroll etal. 2010, pp. 485-486) enumerated various factors that must come into

considerations during the process of immunization registry development. According to Linkins (2010),

developers of immunization registry must give close attention to individual privacy and confidentiality

issues. They should intimate patients/parents of the existence of registry and information contained in

it, and must not shy away from disclosing the potential hazards of keeping private information in a

seemingly public database. Parents should be given the option to choose whether their children would

participate in the registry or not, without penalties, and should be given permission to review/amend

information that they had given earlier that is in the registry (Linkins, 2010). Linkins (2010) further

indicated that registry developers should limit access to registry information and audit trails to their

respective individuals, enforce penalties for any unauthorized use of registry, and set punitive measures

for denial of health insurance coverage for instance, due to a pre-existing condition.   
 8

References:

California prison health care receivership corporation (2008). Request for proposals for correctional

     health records. Professional Management Services for California Adult Prison Facilities. Retrieved

     https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/201530

Jernigan, J.B., Davies, J. & Sim, A (O’Carrol et al. 2010). Data standards in public health informatics.

     Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. Health Informatics Series

Kitch, P. & Yasnoff, W.A. Assessing the value of information system (O’Carroll, P.W., Yasnoff, W.A.,

     Ward, M.E., Ripp, L.H. & Martin, E.L. [Eds 2010]). Public Health Informatics and Information

Systems  

     Health Informatics Series

Linkins (O’Carroll, P.W., Yasnoff, W.A., Ward, M.E., Ripp, L.H. & Martin, E.L. (Eds 2010).

     Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. Health Informatics Series  

O’Carroll, P.W., Yasnoff, W.A., Ward, M.E., Ripp, L.H. & Martin, E.L. (Eds 2010). Public

     Health Informatics and Information Systems. Health Informatics Series

O’Caroll, P.W. (O’Caroll et al. 2010). Public Health Informatics and Information Systems.  

     Health Informatics Series

Rouse, M. (2007). Request for proposal (RFP). Retrieved from

     http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/definition/request-for-proposal

Yasnoff, A.W. (2008). Health informatics: Procurement of a system: Build vs. buy. Streaming

     Video, Laureate Education Inc.