Attachment_2_-_Technical_Evaluation_Factors_Amendment_P00002_0002.pdf

Research Support Services (Clinical and Scientific)

EVALUATION CRITERIA & INSTRUCTIONS

This document details the instructions to Offerors, evaluation criteria, and evaluation method.

A. Submission Structure and Administrative Requirements

1. Volumes required o Volume I – Technical & Management Approach (see Section C) o Volume II – Past Performance (see Section D) o Volume III – Price (see Section E) o Attachments (resumes, CPARS/letters of reference, pricing templates)

2. Proposal validity: Quotes shall remain valid for 90 days from the RFP due date.

3. Format instructions (mandatory):

o Font: Arial or Times New Roman, 11-point minimum.

o Margins: 1 inch all sides.

o Pagination: consecutive by volume.

o File naming and file format instructions will be provided in the solicitation transmittal.

4. Page limits (recommended and enforceable):

o Volume I – Technical & Management: 30 pages maximum (tables and graphics count).

o Volume II – Past Performance: 6 pages maximum (up to 3 references; CPARS may be provided and do not count against this limit).

o Key Personnel resumes: 2 pages each (resumes do not count toward the 30-page technical limit).

o Volume III – Price: No page limit (use provided pricing template).

5. What does NOT count against page limits: cover page, table of contents, required attachments (resumes, CPARS), and the completed pricing template.

B. Volume I – Technical & Management Approach (Evaluation Factor I and II)

Purpose: Demonstrate understanding of the Statement of Work and the Offeror's approach to providing integrated support across the three required task areas: (1) Clinical and Scientific Support Services, (2) Translational Research Program Support, and (3) Consolidation Support Services. Offerors shall also demonstrate how they will support NIH's need for coordination, efficiency, stewardship, and appropriate separation between contractor support and Government decision-making.

Factor I — Technical Approach (most important non-price factor)

Evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach across these subfactors:

• SOW Task Area Execution: For each of the three SOW task areas, the Offeror shall provide: (a) an approach summary, (b) key activities and deliverables, (c) sequencing and timing, (d) measurable performance indicators or service standards, and (e) key assumptions and dependencies.

• Performance Monitoring, Reporting & Deliverables: Describe the approach to status reporting, milestone tracking, dashboards, action-item tracking, risk reporting, and performance monitoring. Include sample formats for a status report and dashboard, and explain how electronic deliverables will be provided in accessible formats, where applicable.

• Change Management and Cross-Institute Coordination. Describe the approach to supporting consolidation efforts, multi-Institute coordination, communication planning, workflow analysis, and process improvement.

• Risk Recognition and Mitigation. Describe how performance risks will be identified, monitored, and mitigated, including staffing risk, onboarding risk, workload variability, stakeholder coordination risk, organizational conflict of interest risk, and risk of contractor performance encroaching on inherently governmental functions.

Evaluation emphasis: Understanding of the SOW; clarity and realism of the technical approach; quality of proposed deliverables and reporting; effectiveness of cross-Institute coordination and change-management support; and realism of risk mitigation.

In evaluating this factor, the Government will assess strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks, as applicable.

Table 2. Combined Management/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding

Quote meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Quote meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Quote is ineligible for award.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is ineligible for award.

Factor II — Management, Staffing & Retention Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to staff and manage the work successfully.

• Organizational Structure and Integration. Provide an organization chart showing the prime contractor, subcontractors, and any teaming partners. Identify roles and responsibilities and explain how work will be coordinated across the three task areas and across participating Institutes and stakeholders.

• Key Personnel and Subject Matter Expertise. Propose Key Personnel, at a minimum including a Program Manager or Project Lead and senior leads with demonstrated experience in clinical/scientific research support, translational research support, organizational assessment/process improvement, and change management.

• Staffing Plan and Labor Mix. Provide a labor-category-to-task-area mapping table identifying labor categories, hours or level of effort, primary responsibilities, and how staff will be applied to the three task areas.

• Retention, Continuity, and Backfill. Describe retention strategies, continuity planning, and backfill procedures for key roles, including maximum time to replace critical staff.

• Quality Assurance, Oversight, and Role Separation. Describe the internal quality-control approach, escalation procedures, review checkpoints, and controls to ensure the contractor does not perform inherently governmental functions.

Evaluation emphasis: Adequacy of management structure; quality and relevance of proposed personnel; realism of staffing and labor mix; strength of continuity and retention approach;

and soundness of quality assurance and role-separation controls.

In evaluating this factor, the Government will assess strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks, as applicable.

Table 2. Combined Management/Risk Ratings Rating Description

Outstanding

Quote meets requirements and indicates an outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Quote meets requirements and indicates a good approach and understanding of the requirements. Quote contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Quote meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Quote does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The Quote has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Quote is ineligible for award.

Unacceptable Quote does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Quote is ineligible for award.

C. Volume II – Past Performance (Factor III)

Factor III: Past Performance. In assessing the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements, evaluation of past performance will result in past performance recency, relevancy, and overall ratings as follows:

Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. “Recent” is defined as a performance that is no older than three years from the date the solicitation is issued.

In conducting a performance recency assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

Table 3. Past Performance Recency Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Recent The effort must be ongoing or must have been completed within the last three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

Not Recent The effort has been completed for more than three (3) years by the closing date and time of this solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the solicitation.

Relevancy will be based on similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity. Greater relevance may be assigned to efforts involving biomedical, clinical, or scientific research support;

translational research program support; program analysis and operational assessments;

change management or consolidation support; support to NIH, HHS, or similar Federal organizations; and coordination among multiple stakeholders in a regulated Federal environment. Greater consideration may be given to recent past performance involving NIH or similarly regulated Federal biomedical, clinical, or scientific research support environments when such experience more closely aligns with the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this requirement.

In conducting a performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the similar work of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Overall Rating. The past performance evaluation is a comparative assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements. The Government will review the information provided, to include, but not limited to information obtained from references provided by the offeror and other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the Government to determine the quality of the Offeror’s overall record of recent and relevant past performance. Past Performance Confidence assessment will be based on the following rating scheme. In conducting a past performance overall rating, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 5.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

In addition to past performance information submitted by the Offeror, past performance information may be obtained from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other sources known to the government.

In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those individual contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFQ. The Government also reserves the right to give greater consideration to an individual Offeror’s past performance information rather than the combined past performance information of an Offeror and its associates using teaming arrangements.

Offerors without a record of recent or relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that a past performance rating cannot be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor. Past Performance of Unknown/Neutral is permissible and will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably; however, in a best-value tradeoff, an Offeror with a stronger record of relevant past performance may be determined to provide greater value than an Offeror with a Neutral confidence rating.

If the Government chooses to follow up with questions, Offerors will be provided an opportunity to address any adverse past performance information not previously addressed.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information which supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

The Government may reject a quote if it is found that the Offeror deleted, misrepresented, or withheld any information that might have a negative impact on its past performance record.

D. Volume III – Price (Factor IV)

Offerors shall submit the completed pricing template and any supporting assumptions. The Price volume should include proposed labor categories and rates, hours or level of effort by labor category and task area, option pricing, assumptions affecting price, and any applicable discounts or labor-category mapping required by the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate price for fairness and reasonableness. The Government may also evaluate price realism for the limited purpose of assessing understanding of the requirement and performance risk, particularly because this is a labor-based professional services requirement where the adequacy of the proposed labor mix is central to successful performance.

FAR 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation, and the potential six-month extension will be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price.

E. Evaluation Methodology, Ratings & Thresholds

1. Factors and relative importance (order and guidance):

o Factor I – Technical Approach (highest non-price factor) o Factor II – Management, Staffing & Retention Plan o Factor III – Past Performance o Factor IV – Price

Non-price factors combined are significantly more important than price.

2. Adjectival ratings for non-price factors: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable.

Past Performance will be rated using Confidence levels: Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, Unknown/Neutral.

3. Minimum eligibility thresholds: To be eligible for award an Offeror must receive no lower than “Acceptable” for Factor I (Technical Approach) and no lower than “Acceptable” for Factor II (Management/Staffing). Past Performance of Unknown/Neutral is permissible but may be unfavorable in the tradeoff.

Evaluation Considerations: The Government will evaluate quotations in accordance with the factors set forth in this RFQ. Quotations that fail to meet solicitation requirements do not demonstrate an adequate approach under the non-price factors, or do not reflect recent and relevant past performance may be determined to present lower value to the Government and may be less favorably considered in the best-value tradeoff. The Government reserves the right to base its award decision on the initial quotations received.

4. Tradeoff application: The Contracting Officer or designated Selection Authority will perform a best value tradeoff across factors. Higher technical merit and superior past performance may justify selection of a higher-priced Offeror when overall value to the Government is greater.

5. Documentation: Evaluators will document strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks for each factor. The SSA will document the rationale for tradeoffs and selection.

F. Other Important Evaluation Notes

• Offerors shall describe how they will maintain appropriate separation between contractor support and inherently governmental functions.

• Offerors shall describe how they will manage onboarding, access, training, security-related compliance requirements, and handling of nonpublic information.

• Offerors shall describe how they will identify, disclose, and mitigate actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest.

• Offerors shall describe how electronic deliverables will be prepared in accessible formats where applicable.

• Offerors shall describe any assumptions regarding Government-furnished information, systems access, coordination support, or availability of Government stakeholders needed to meet proposed schedules.

G. Final Selection Rule

If two or more Offerors are determined to be essentially equal after evaluation of all factors, the Government may consider: (1) the Offeror’s past performance confidence level; (2) the Offeror’s technical approach rating; (3) price. The SSA retains discretion to make the award that provides the best value to the Government.

H. Required Attachments Checklist

Offerors must include these required attachments with their quote (failure to provide a required attachment may render the quote ineligible):

1. Completed pricing template.

2. Labor-category-to-task-area staffing matrix.

3. Sample status report and/or dashboard.

4. Key Personnel resumes or position descriptions.

5. Up to three past performance references and/or CPARS.

6. Organization chart.

7. Quality assurance plan.

8. OCI disclosure and mitigation narrative, if applicable.