02. DHS PIAD PICS STENS Evaluation Factors Draft 20220518.pdf

70RSAT22RFI000003 – Draft Evaluation Factors

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Factor Identification – The evaluation factors detailed below will be used to evaluate the offerors by the proposals received in response to the Plum Island Closure and Support (PICS) Program: Scientific, Technical and Engineering Support for PIADC Decontamination and Closure Request for Proposals. The relative weight of the factors is presented in a table in Section 2 of this appendix, in order for offerors to understand their relative importance to the evaluators as part of this process. Reviewers will perform a subjective evaluation based on these factors. Elements under each factor are presented in descending order of importance.

• Factor 1 – Technical Approach. The technical approach is prioritized as the leading evaluation factor given the overarching need to assess the performer’s ability to meet the entire scope of the solicitation requirements. A competent, mature performer should demonstrate that they (1) fully comprehend the recognized technical complexity and risks associated with this scope, and (2) present a viable, defensible, and technically sound approach to addressing each aspect of the requirement. Evidence of successful application of analogous approaches should also be addressed within this section, as appropriate, in addition to the Past Performance evaluation factor.

• Element 1 – Technical Approach to Scientific Scope The performer should implicitly and explicitly demonstrate an understanding of the technical scope required and the method planned to accomplish it. Specifically relevant is the demonstration of and experience and knowledge involving scientific work with a variety of decontamination methods, and in a variety of applicable settings.

• Element 2 –Technical Approach to Engineering/Technical Scope The performer should implicitly and explicitly demonstrate an understanding of the technical scope required and the method planned to accomplish it. Engineering and related technical services will be critical for performing a number of task areas specified within the requirement and will necessitate both onsite and offsite services. This will entail primary execution of PICS critical path activities including strategic planning;

translating down-selected decontamination and associated processes (execution, sampling, validation, etc.); enabling regulatory interface; structural, mechanical, etc.

engineering support for facility modifications necessary to enable decontamination. The technical approach for each activity, and how they engage with related activities in other task areas, should clearly demonstrate the requisite level of competence necessitated for the scope. The performer should implicitly and explicitly demonstrate an understanding of the technical scope required and the method planned to accomplish it.

• Element 3 – Resource Utilization Approach

• Availability of reach back expertise

Key to this is access to a cadre of SMEs representing a range of expertise and experience in biological decontamination of facility-scale biocontainment laboratories. These individuals should be available to work both onsite and remotely, using a labor mix deemed appropriate for the stated activities, along with additional tasks that may arise during the period of performance.

DRAFT

70RSAT22RFI000003 – Draft Evaluation Criteria

• Approach for utilization of Key Subcontractors that may be performing and/or managing critical tasks. This should demonstrate a cohesive management approach, along with technical expertise for the selected Key Subcontractor(s).

• Approach/availability of offsite facilities to provide support (international, academic, Contract Research Organization (CRO), or owned) as needed to augment any PIADC-specific activities. Availability of PIADC federal technical staff, primary pathogens, testing and evaluation infrastructure remains undefined, and may be impacted by any variation in the overall PICS schedule, timing of mission transition, and other extrinsic variables. As such, the performer should propose scientifically justifiable alternatives, such as studies demonstrating equivalency and utilizing surrogate, non-select agent target organisms to account for this eventuality. The ability to provide testing capabilities using target select agent organisms at locations other than Plum Island, or other alternative approaches, is also desirable.

• Proposed labor mix (versus any provided plug-in numbers/IGCE basic requirement) must demonstrate a complete understanding of the scope and a realistic implementation approach.

• Element 4 – Plan to Translate/Apply Output from Scientific Scope into Practice

The approach to facilitating transition of results of scientific investigations into application is an integral component of the government’s requirement. The technical approach must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the inherent challenges associated with this activity, in addition to presenting a logical approach to execute the process. As part of the DHS S&T foundational knowledge workstream, this should entail both contract-specific translation and application, as well as contribution to the greater discipline, i.e.:

• As part of the PICS mission scope

• For external use – publications, contribution to practice, foundational knowledge.

• Factor 2 – Management Approach. The performer’s management approach should demonstrate considerable capability to oversee and coordinate the multiple tasks and the multi-disciplinary technical foci involved in this requirement. Concomitant with the oversight capability is the need to proactively manage the spectrum of risks that are recognized as inherent to the PICS decontamination program, along with the need to address any other routine challenges that are anticipated during the Period of Performance (POP).

Key elements that are prioritized as part of the management specification are itemized as noted.

• Element 1 – Risk Management Capabilities/Plan

The risk management element of the management approach should demonstrate a thorough understanding of prioritized risks, and the impact of each risk to the entire program. This includes but is not limited to planning and executing scientific endeavors, developing methodologies for application, facilitating complex facility modifications, conducting strategic planning to achieve consensus, facilitating formal engagement with regulatory authorities, etc. Similarly, knowledge of and experience providing effective and realistic mechanisms for risk mitigation should similarly be demonstrated. At a minimum, this should include the following:

• Risk register

• Mitigation approaches

• Element 2 – Management Structure & Key Personnel Illustration of proposed management organization, including key personnel, and how the organization will interface with government and other performing/involved entities (e.g., federal, regulatory, etc.) to effectively achieve required objectives.

Qualifications/expertise of key personnel leading technical areas or managing aspects of the project will be evaluated (e.g., education, credentials, duration and type of experience, etc.). This may include any key personnel leading and/or managing critical Key Subcontractor efforts. At a minimum, key personnel should include: Lead Scientist, Lead Engineer, Project Manager, and On-site (PIADC) Operational Manager. Also identify, as appropriate, Teaming partners (if Teaming with another contractor) and Key Subcontractors, including their expected roles and key personnel.

• Element 3 – Management Plan A management plan should be included and evaluated for capability and understanding of the requirement. It should adequately address the following aspects, at a minimum.

• Scheduling – Capability for project scheduling in general, and in alignment with overarching closure and transition milestones including deliverables

• Integrating multi-disciplinary activities (science, technical, engineering, laboratory operations, regulatory requirements, etc.) including interfaces with PICS PMO stakeholders

• Quality management/quality control- Processes for assuring the quality of services provided and products produced and associated reporting processes, including analysis of performance, identifying and tracking improvement actions to closure and managing changes.

• Element 4 – Communications Approach

A well-defined approach for communicating and coordinating activities with other parties (Teaming Partners/subcontractors, federal staff (technical, scientific), Operations & Maintenance (O&M) contractor, regulators, third party verifiers, etc.) should be included.

• Factor 3 – Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated to determine how well an offeror has performed recent, relevant decontamination projects involving multiple, applicable technical disciplines (e.g., science, engineering, etc.) at facility-scale (i.e., comparable magnitude) and involving similar complexity. This enables the government to assess whether the 0fferor can supply the requisite services with a satisfactory degree of competence, based on their records of performance. In terms of complexity and risk, the evaluation will entail aspects such as the type of biological pathogens present, level of regulatory engagement, degree of independence, development and application of technical methods, performance of any physical modifications. The offeror’s past performance on contracts of similar size, content, complexity, and relevance to the PICS decontamination effort, as well as the quality of the offeror’s overall past performance, will be evaluated.

Specific areas for evaluation include the following:

• Scale/Complexity of relevant decontamination project practices

• Comparable risk level – pathogens, regulatory environment, level of public interest

• Demonstrated capability of providing independent execution of scientific/technical scope

• Demonstrated capability to translate scientific/technical findings into practice

• Prior experience utilizing scientific analyses to support the design and execution of testing programs.

In addition, information regarding the offeror’s past performance accessible through CPARS/PIPRS, and any other performance information that may be accessed, or may become available, will also be included in the government’s evaluation.

• Factor 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Participation. The offeror’s subcontracting plan will be evaluated in comparison with the DHS Component’s subcontracting goals identified in the RFP and the offeror’s plan to employ good faith efforts to meet or exceed the RFP goals.

• Factor 5 – Price. Price will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed scope of services is realistic, given the stated scope of work. The pricing of bids will be assessed against the proposed service to determine if the cost is fair and reasonable and will not be compared/ranked against other offerors.

b. Order of Importance – All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price. Elements under each factor are listed in order of decreasing importance.

c. Best Value Continuum – In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101, the Government will utilize the subjective Tradeoff source selection process for this procurement. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and price, and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal to achieve a best value/amongst the best value contract award. The basis for award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluation performed by the SSEB based on the evaluation factors and their importance as indicated in this appendix. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of a contract is in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced offeror, or other than the offeror with the highest evaluation rating.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, in the Government’s estimation, provides the best value in response to the requirement.