75N98026Q00448_Technical_Evaluation_Attachment_2.pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) SERVICES ATTACHMENT

NIH Postmortem Human Brain Collection

ATTACHMENT 2: Technical Evaluation Criteria

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 and all technical evaluation factors are detailed below:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the statement of work in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the efforts to be performed and the skill level required to perform them. The proposed technical approach shall be evaluated for:

• Annual Estimated Volume of Referrals: The projected annual volume of cases that could potentially be referred to the NIMH for consent (with a sufficient annual volume of total autopsy cases to reasonably support the projections); a higher volume of referrals is considered more valuable to the government than fewer;

• Regulatory: Approval from the appropriate Government body(ies) that sanction the extraction, processing, and donating of human organs; the possession of any required permits, licenses, etc.;

• Facilities: Appropriateness and availability of laboratory space, facilities, and equipment to accomplish the contract objectives;

• Quality of Specimens: The perceived ability to provide cases to NIMH as soon as possible after death, and consent is provided by the next of kin, and within 12 hours of extraction and no later than 48 hours after death; avoidance of any delays or logistical problems due to location (Courier will pick up the specimen and bring to the NIH Bethesda campus); and

• Identified Issues and Solutions: Adequacy of any proposed solutions to identified problems

Factor 2: Personnel Qualifications

The demonstrated qualifications, availability, and experience of proposed professional and technical personnel to perform the tasks of the contract, as evidenced by resumes or CVs.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Contractor shall provide at least two (2) past performance references with knowledge of the contractor’s relevant skills and experience related to the requirements outlined in this Statement of Work.

References shall include the following information:

a. Name of Organization

b. Brief Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities

c. Contact Name and Title

Past Performance shall be evaluated for relevance to the current requirements.

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