Attachment 2 - Technical Eval.pdf

Optically Pumped Magnetometers (OPM) Optimized Magnetically Shielded Room (MSR)

ATTACHMENT 2: 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: The proposal should be no longer than 3 pages, excluding key personnel resume(s)/curriculum vitae.

Factor 1: Technical Approach (30 Points)

The Contractor shall be evaluated for understanding of the requirements in accomplishing the statement of work. The offeror’s technical approach shall indicate compliance with the requirements as outlined in the statement of work. This should include both the requested equipment (degaussing coils and active shielding coils), as well as the performance requirements (<15nT internal field for passive shielding, <2nT internal field for active shielding).

Factor 2: Key Personnel (30 Points)

The Contractor shall provide key personnel responsible for installation and acceptance testing of the OPM optimized MSR. These personnel should be able to provide documentation of their experience, educational background, and training.

Factor 3: Past Performance (40 Points)

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) Description of Contractor’s Responsibilities as they relate to this SOW

c) Contract Period of Performance

d) Contact Name and Title

e) Telephone Number

f) E-mail Address

g) Contact Name, Title, and Telephone Number

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

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

Excellent (90 – 100) Very Good (80 – 89) Good (70 – 79) Fair (60 – 69) Poor (0 – 59)

Excellent The proposal 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 proposal 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

Very Good The proposal 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 proposal 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

Good 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.

Fair 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

Poor 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