80JSC026Q0001 - Attachment B - Evaluation Instructions and Criteria.pdf

80JSC026Q0001 Evaluation Instructions and Criteria Page 1 of 5 Attachment B

1.0 EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 STEP ONE (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS

Quoters shall provide only a Yes or No response to the following questions. Please restate the questions below verbatim in your written response and respond with either a yes or no.

1. Is the quote submitted in response to this RFQ for a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) Decompresson Sickness Data Modeling System?

2. Can your confirm the quote does not contain sustaining licensing fees beyond the period of performance?

Quoters responding “No” to either of these questions, will be eliminated from this competition and the quote will not be further evaluated.

1.2 STEP TWO (2) – TRADE-OFF

The Step Two Trade-Off evaluation consists of the following factors:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 3: PRICE

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

All compliant proposals will be evaluated by a panel of modeling, hypobaric DCS and space physiology experts. This evaluation includes an assessment of the scientific and technical merit, the relevance to objectives stated in this RFQ, and ability to develop an operationally-relevant product as stated in the deliverables. Adjectival scores will be assigned for Technical Approach.

Quoters shall submit reference information for up to three (3) customers. References from customers with projects of a similar nature, scope, and complexity to the effort described in this RFQ are preferred but not required.

Quoters shall document the team’s qualifications to perform the requested work, including expertise (i.e., modeling and/or physiology), relevant publication history, model development accomplishments, and other relevant information (e.g., NIH-style biographical sketch or curriculum vitae for key team members)

80JSC026Q0001 Evaluation Instructions and Criteria Page 2 of 5

The following information shall be included for each reference provided:

(1) Name of the company using your product

(2) Company point of contact (POC) name, phone number, and email address

(3) Contract/Order number

(4) Contract type

(5) Contract value

(6) A detailed summary of the work performed and how the project is similar in nature, scope, and complexity to this RFQ.

NOTE: Quoters should notify the POCs that they may be contacted directly by a Government representative because their name was submitted as a reference for this RFQ.

FACTOR 3: PRICE

Pricing data for proposals will be evaluated both by peer review for price reasonableness and by NASA program personnel for total price and comparison to available funds. In evaluating the price reasonableness of the proposals, reviewers will assess the proposed level of effort (i.e. FTE) and the proposed other direct costs (i.e. supplies, equipment, travel) are commensurate with those required to accomplish the goals described in the proposal.

Options. At the completion of the project, the contractor may be selected to exercise the option for additional modeling work based on the results from the model validation via NASA’s withheld subset (reference Section 2.4 of the Performance Work Statement). Pricing data should include option year breakout.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

This procurement will be evaluated using a two-step process as detailed below.

2.1 Step One (1) – MEETING KEY RFQ REQUIREMENTS

Quoters will first be evaluated for their responses to the questions in Step One (1) – Meeting Key RFQ Requirements. Each response to the questions in Step One (1) will be individually rated as either:

Meets: An answer of “Yes”

Does Not Meet: An answer of “No”

Quoters with any response rated as Does Not Meet under Step One (1) will be eliminated from this competition and their quote will not be further evaluated.

Quoters with responses rated as Meets in Step One (1), will then have their quote further evaluated using the factors listed in Step Two (2) – Trade-off.

80JSC026Q0001 Evaluation Instructions and Criteria Page 3 of 5

2.2 Step Two (2) – TRADE-OFF

The trade-off factors below are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Acceptability is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price.

Technical Acceptability and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different Quoter’s Technical and Past Performance quotes.

All Quoters will be evaluated for compliance with the RFQ requirements.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Technical Acceptability will be evaluated for the Quoter’s demonstrated approach and understanding of the requirements with supporting rationale using the table below. Overall demonstrated understanding will include a review for reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and risk to the Government. Technical Acceptability will be assigned one overall rating of

“Outstanding”, “Acceptable”, or “Unacceptable” based on the evaluation of all elements collectively. Elements will not be rated individually.

Technical Acceptability will also be evaluated for consistency with the Price of the quote. The Government will evaluate the resources proposed in the Technical submission for consistency with the resources proposed in the Price submission. This consistency evaluation is distinct from the Price evaluation. A lack of consistency between Technical Approach and Price may adversely impact the Government’s evaluation of “demonstration of understanding” under Technical Acceptability. Therefore, it is possible to receive an Unacceptable rating for Technical Acceptability if the Technical Acceptability submission is not consistent with Price submission.

Outstanding approach and understanding of the requirements. Risks have a very low potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Acceptable Quote indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risks have a low potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

Unacceptable Quote has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risks have a high potential to impact schedule, cost, or performance.

80JSC026Q0001 Evaluation Instructions and Criteria Page 4 of 5

Past performance will be rated as Acceptable, Neutral, or Unacceptable using the table below. The Government will award a Purchase Order resulting from this RFQ to the Quoters with Acceptable or Neutral past performance. Acceptable past performance ratings are more advantageous to the Government than Neutral past performance ratings.

Only one rating will be assigned. Individual elements are not rated.

In addition to the information provided by the Quoter and its references, the Government reserves the right to evaluate information relative to performance using other sources of information such as the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM.gov, or other sources known to the Government.

Acceptable The Government has a reasonable expectation that the Quoter will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Quoters without a past performance record or for whom past performance information is so sparse that no meaningful evaluation rating can be reasonably assigned will receive a Neutral rating.

Unacceptable The Government has no reasonable expectation that the Quoter will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Quoter’s technical submission will be evaluated for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

Reasonableness will be determined utilizing various price analysis techniques of the total evaluated price (TEP).

The Government will evaluate the TEP. The TEP is the sum of the CLINS for the entire period of performance: base plus option years. Evaluation of option period prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The price evaluation will determine price reasonableness, the presence of unbalanced pricing, and completeness.

Price Reasonableness. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price. For the price to be fair and reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. If adequate competition is not obtained, the Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Quoter's total proposed price utilizing the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). An offer that is determined to be unreasonably high will not be considered for award.