Attachment 2 - FAR 52.212-1 and FAR 52.212-2.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2:

FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, (JUN 2020)

FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, (OCT 2014)

FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, (Jun 2020)

In addition to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial, the following instructions apply to this acquisition.

The Government intends to issue a Firm Fixed Price purchase order for this requirement.

Invoicing shall be in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act and payment shall be made via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT).

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Offerors may provide up to 10, 8.5 by 11-inch pages (using no less than 10 font size) as their proposal to be evaluated by the Source Evaluation Panel. The technical submission will address the Statement of Work and be responsive to the attached evaluation factors.

The 10-page technical submission limitation does not include and is in addition to the personnel resume and price proposal. Technical submission pages in excess of this page limitation will not be considered.

The offeror’s technical 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.

PRICE PROPOSAL

The pricing schedule shall be completed to include all costs related to the Statement of Work for the base year and four (4) option years.

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Technical factors together shall be considered significantly more important than price. The following technical evaluation criteria will be used by the Government when reviewing the technical portion of the quotation. The criteria below are listed in descending order of relative importance.

Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Contractor’s proposal shall address each area of the statement of work requirements in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the efforts to be performed and the skill level required to perform them. Specifically, the approach will be evaluated for expertise in developing an interface to the positron emission tomography datasets stored in the OpenNeuro database and the developing of platforms for the sharing of neuroimaging data. The contractor shall have expertise and prior work experience in a biomedical setting with diverse type of scientists and expertise in the design and implementation of the OpenNeuro database as well as the design of specific features of the OpenNeuroPET interface. Capability in these areas shall be viewed favorably. The proposal must include a CV or a resume.

Factor 2: 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

The evaluation will be based on information obtained from references provided by the offeror, other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources known to the

Government, and any information supplied by the offeror concerning problems encountered on the identified contracts and corrective action taken.

The Government is not required to contact all references provided by the offeror. Also, references other than those identified by the offeror may be contacted by the

Government to obtain additional information that will be used in the evaluation of the offeror's past performance.

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

Price Evaluation

NIH will consider and evaluate the following factors when determining an Offeror’s price quote:

• The CO will determine that the total price is reasonable.

• The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

• Any assumptions or clarifications to price provided by the Offeror.

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)