22-005044 - Neuronavigation System Tech Eval 2022.pdf

SURGICAL NEURONAVIGATION SYSTEM FOR NONHUMAN PRIMATES

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

FAR clause 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items applies to this acquisition and the specific evaluation criteria to be included in paragraph (a) of that provision are as follows:

The Government will award a contract or purchase order resulting from this requirement on the basis of best value, technical factors and price considered. Technical factors together shall be considered more important than price. The technical evaluation factors are as follows, in order of importance:

1. Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the Purchase Description requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical proposal of how it meets each of the project requirements. This shall include the ability of the offeror to deliver a surgical neuronavigation system for nonhuman primates. This system must include a high-resolution IR camera of 1.3 MP with a frame rate up to 180 Hz; navigation computer with Intel core I7 and

NIVIDIA (or equivalent) graphics card; wireless navigation system; ultra-precise measurement probe and other specific characteristics noted in the purchase description.

2. Factor 2: Approach to Delivery, Installation, Warranty and Training

The Offer shall detail in its technical proposal how it shall meet the delivery, installation, warranty, and training requirements. All labor, materials, and shipping are to be provided by the offeror. Installation is to be completed by the vendor within 30 days of delivery. A minimum of at least a 12-month comprehensive warranty is required. The Contractor will also provide a workshop for the staff within 45 days of installation.

3. Factor 3: Past Performance

The offeror shall provide a list of two (2) past performance references completed during the past three (3) years, similar in size and scope to the requirements outlined in the Purchase

Description. Offerors shall include the following information for each contract identified:

• Name of Contracting Organization

• Contract Number

• Contract Type

• Total Contract Value

• Description of Requirement and Specific Responsibilities of the Offeror as they relate to this Purchase Description

• Contract Period of Performance

Technical proposals will be evaluated using a summary adjectival rating in accordance with the following scale:

Excellent

The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the proposal provides a clear understanding of the requirements and demonstrates the offerors ability to meet the requirement. Risk Level: Very Low

Good

The proposal demonstrates an approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes advantageous characteristics of substance, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low as the proposal contains alternative solutions which are considered feasible and practical. These solutions are further considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate an understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low

Acceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach includes both advantageous and disadvantageous characteristics of substance, where the advantages are not outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are likely to result in acceptable performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, as the proposal solutions are generally feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect moderate risk in that they may be somewhat clear and precise, partially supported, and/or demonstrate a general understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Neutral

Marginal

The proposal demonstrates an approach which may not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has disadvantages of substance and advantages, which if they exist, are outweighed by the disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages present a low or questionable likelihood of resulting in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high as the proposal contains solutions which may not be feasible and practical. These solutions may also be considered to reflect high risk in that they lack clarity and precision, are generally unsupported, and/or do not demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: High

Unacceptable

The proposal demonstrates an approach which, based on a very high risk, will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has several disadvantages of substance, and advantages which, if they exist, are outweighed by disadvantages.

Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are unlikely to result in satisfactory performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high as the proposal contains solutions which are not feasible and practical. The solutions may also be considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision. Risk Level: Very High