75N95020Q00265_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Technical Evaluation Criteria:

The Government will award a contract 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 and all technical evaluation factors are detailed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s technical quotation shall address each area of the Statement of Work requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of compliance with requirements. The proposed technical approach shall be evaluated for the appropriateness and effectiveness of the overall approach as well as the methods, procedures, and resources proposed for performing the tasks described in this solicitation.

Base Year Contract Evaluation Factor 1: Offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to generate 414 engineered isogenic Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)-mutation iPSC lines. Offeror ensures the allele types, number of genes and number of independent clones will include revertant alleles of SNV alleles, including 130 projects with 3 or more independent clones. Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide homozygous knockouts up to 77 genes with 2 or more independent clones.

Evaluation Factor 2: The offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to provide engineered cell lines that have HaloTag alleles, up to 77 gees and 2 or more independent clones and provide a HaloTag in the SNV allele, that will result up to 130 projects, with 2 independent clones.

Evaluation Factor 3: Each line will harbor one of the four allele types in either wild-type iPS cells or a selected SNV-containing clone, as specified by the Government. Offeror demonstrates the ability to recover 3 or more independent revertant clones for each of the 130 SNV projects.

Evaluation Factor 4: Offeror discusses plan to endeavor to generate at least 2 independent clones of the other three allele types (knockout and HaloTag alleles).

Evaluation Factor 5: Offeror demonstrates the ability to provide quality control (QC) validation of engineered iPSCs for each engineered line.

Evaluation Factor 6: Deliverables for each additional option year

Description: For option years the same 434 alleles will be generated each year in a different parental iPS cell line to be selected by the co-directors of the program. Editing revertant and rescue experiments will be performed. Offeror demonstrates ability to provide homozygous mutation clones, multiple vials of frozen cells for each engineered line.

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

Excellent The quotation has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which will clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. This clearly achievable approach includes several advantageous characteristics of substance, and very few disadvantages, which can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low as the quotation provides solutions which are unquestionably feasible and practical.

These solutions are further considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low

Good The quotation demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This sound 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 quotation contains 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 quotation 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 quotation 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 quotation 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 quotation 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 quotation 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 quotation 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