4. EVALUATION CRITERIA-Adjectival-Rating - AV Renovation 07.22.2020.docx

NIH/OD/OLAO/OA

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Adjectival Rating

GENERAL

The major evaluation factors for this solicitation include technical (which encompasses experience, technical approach, corporate and human resources, quality control and past performance factors) and cost/price factors. Although technical factors are of paramount consideration in the award of the contract, cost/price is also important to the overall contract award decision. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In any case, the Government reserves the right to make award(s) to that offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value to the Government.

Offerors are advised that award will be made to that offeror whose proposal provides the combination of features that offers the best or greatest overall value to the Government. The Government is more concerned with obtaining performance capability superiority rather than lowest overall cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior performance. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate factor for award of a contract as proposals become more equal based on other factors.

The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the prospective Contractors in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the RFP. The merits of each proposal will be evaluated carefully. Each proposal must document the feasibility of successful implementation of requirements of the RFP. Offerors must submit information sufficient to evaluate their proposals based on the detailed criteria below.

MANDATORY CRITERIA

The below are mandatory criteria and will have to be met prior to award of the contract:

1. Audio/Visual (A/V) Technology Certification in designing, programming, implementation, and support of the A/V equipment proposed. The A/V vendor must also have knowledge and understand on how to support and implement the Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE) to ensure a 100% successful implementation of the proposed A/V solution.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

The criteria below are listed in the relative order of importance.

1. Corporate Experience and Capabilities

· Demonstrated understanding of and experience with designing, programming, implementation and support of high quality and reliable 4K Audio/Visual (A/V) systems for Conference Rooms and Offices in support of internal and remote online collaboration services devoted to biomedical research and administrative meetings.

· Demonstrated understanding of and experience working to increase diversity and inclusion awareness at a large organization for global online meetings using the latest Online Collaboration Services, but not limited to, (i.e. Skype of Business, WebEx, Zoom, etc.) with latest technology and high quality A/V systems.

· Currency, quality, in-depth education based on certifications and experience of 4K Audio/Visual (A/V) systems for Conference Rooms and Offices meeting support equipment proposed and included, but not limited to Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE) as noted in the documents provided.

· Demonstrated proper training and support after completion of the A/V solution implementation.

2. Technical Approach

· Demonstrated understanding of the categories of work related to diversity and inclusion, succession planning and strategic planning, facilitating training, and implementing solutions for high quality and reliable 4K Audio/Visual (A/V) systems for Conference Rooms and Offices meeting support.

· Evidence of specific methods and techniques for fulfilling these potential obligations including A/V industry solutions best practices, developed, and utilized with other clients.

· Ability to address problem areas, foreseeable or otherwise, including creativity and feasibility support for the A/V implemented solutions for all the NEI spaces.

· Quality and effectiveness of personnel and resource allocation during the implementation of the A/V solutions within NEI spaces.

· Provide high quality professional Training, A/V Users Guides and A/V System Designs, (i.e. Wiring diagrams and Implementation Design Documentation).

3. Personnel Qualifications

· Currency, quality, and depth of education and experience of individual personnel who may be assigned to this contract in working on A/V similar project implementations. Similar projects must convey similarity in requirements, dollar value, and complexity.

· Quality and depth of education and experience on other projects which may not be similar enough to include in response the above bullet but may be relevant.

· Currency, quality, and depth of education and experience of those individuals who may be assigned to manage individuals working under the contract, responsible for quality control of work performed under the contract or individuals performing work, or otherwise closely but indirectly connected to contract work.

· Specific experience and expertise in 4K A/V Systems in the sharing of biomedical research images in high quality 4K Images, diversity and inclusion in support of local and online meeting needs, strategic planning, succession planning and organizational design to meet NEI A/V requirements and hardware in documents provided in the submitted documents.

· Qualified key personnel provided after implementation NEI Staff training and technical warranty support for the implemented A/V systems within the NEI spaces.

ADJECTIVAL RATING

The Government will evaluate the Technical Proposal using the following adjectival rating.

PAST PERFORMANCE

The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess the relevance and breadth of the Offeror’s experience and the quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has experience that will enhance its technical capability to perform and whether the Offeror consistently delivers quality services in a timely and cost-effective manner. In evaluating past performance, HHS/NIH will only take into consideration the relevant experience and past performance assessments from the Offeror's customers. However, the HHS/NIH reserves the right to use other relevant past performance information it obtains through other sources including other agency databases and information contained in trade literature.

Relevance of Experience: The Offeror’s experience will be evaluated on the degree of relevance to the requirement on the basis of similarity in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, contract type, and period of performance. Only recent experience will be evaluated. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the prime contractor and subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed personnel. The Offeror’s experience with and knowledge of issues and problems of large organizations will be evaluated.

Past Performance Assessments: The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the basis of information contained in the Offeror's proposal and the information that the Government obtains through other means. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of providing high quality services of a similar nature in a manner that ensures maximum accuracy, throughput, cost effectiveness and overall client satisfaction.

If some of the Offeror’s experience is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant experience will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. If no experience is relevant or the experience that is relevant cannot be evaluated due to a reference’s failure to respond, a rating of neutral will be assigned for past performance as defined below.

The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Factor using the following adjectival ratings.

COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offeror(s) cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any contract awarded from this solicitation will contain option provision(s) and periods(s) In accordance with FAR clause 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options, (July 1990) the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by addition the total price for all options to the total price of the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

SELECTION FOR AWARD

Offeror should be aware that the Government shall perform a “best value analysis” using trade-offs. The selection for award shall be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, taking into consideration the technical factors listed above and the total proposed price across all contract periods.